[HN Gopher] Tomato64: A port of Tomato Firmware to x86_64
___________________________________________________________________
Tomato64: A port of Tomato Firmware to x86_64
Author : ls65536
Score : 80 points
Date : 2024-09-06 16:12 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (tomato64.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (tomato64.org)
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| This makes sense. Years ago I used OpenWRT as a lightweight
| "network utility" VM in a number of Customer sites. The UI was
| comprehensible to the in-house IT staff (i.e. it didn't "look
| like Linux") and there's a ton of functionality. I could
| definitely see it being useful on bare metal devices.
| rzzzt wrote:
| I did the same for a virtual lab for experimenting. OpenWRT ran
| as the router VM with two network interfaces and the rest of
| the instances connected to a VirtualBox internal network that
| was configured as its LAN side.
| mysteria wrote:
| How is Tomato compared to the typical x86 choices PfSense or
| Opnsense?
| slipheen wrote:
| Having used both at home, Tomato is much easier for doing
| standard home WiFi things. You can change wireless power
| levels, setup guest networks, etc easily within the UI.
|
| Pfsense/opensense is easier when you have complicated routing
| needs, like multiple vlans with various split tunnels, etc.
|
| It's not 100% accurate, but imo if you want a short-hand you
| could say tomato is WiFi focused with routing support, and
| opensense is routing focused with WiFi support.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| It's first and foremost a WiFi router OS and it's aimed at home
| users. PfSense is very much a "big guns" solution and is
| typically not installed directly on WiFi routers, rather it is
| the gateway that everything runs through.
| tracker1 wrote:
| It's pretty great for home router/wifi usage or SOHO... not as
| advanced/flexible as pfsense/opnsense though. I miss Tomato a
| lot myself, but switched to separate router/ap a few years ago,
| and haven't had a device that could run tomato in close to a
| decade now.
| sulandor wrote:
| what is the rationale behind this effort? are wifi-ap's moving
| towards x86?
|
| ime a usb wifi stick in a desktop computer will work as wifi-ap,
| but is somewhat janky because of the metal case (which is needed
| because em-interference from bus-clocks) and the wifi hardware
| having suboptimal provisions for ap-mode.
|
| UPDATE:
|
| "because we can" (was a stupid question)
|
| no hard feelings; last used tomato ~20y ago on a wrt54gl
| colechristensen wrote:
| Use case would normally be a small form factor x86_64 machine
| which can be price competitive with high end AP hardware and
| you don't have to play the game of finding compatible hardware
| (squatting in the aisle in a walmart looking at the hardware
| revisions of all of the APs they have in stock finding out that
| they have the AP you were looking for but the hardware revision
| was incompatible)
|
| Being able to buy a "normal" computer and install tomato on it
| is a more attractive prospect for a lot of reasons.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| Tomato is just a Linux-ey system that routes packets and which
| features an approachable GUI, and an access point is just a
| system that bridges wireless networks to wired networks.
|
| These functions are normally wrapped up in one box in the
| consumer space, but they're still very different functions.
|
| And maybe I'm not doing it right, but I myself haven't used a
| combined router+wireless box in a fair number of years at home
| or at the shop.
|
| I keep the wired networking+routing back end in one spot where
| it makes sense, and I keep the wireless access points where
| they make sense to provide good coverage where I need it.
|
| My router just routes, and my wireless access points just
| provide wireless access.
|
| ---
|
| So to answer your first question directly: This system lets
| people use the friendly Tomato system on any old (or new, or
| whatever) x86 hardware they have. It brings it out of the world
| of hacks[0] on cheap low-performance embedded Wal-Mart routers
| and lets a person use it for routing on a much more performant
| machine.
|
| [0]: Not that those things aren't fun. I still have the first
| standalone router I ever bought -- a Linksys WRT54GS, with
| Tomato installed, and with an SD card hacked in using a card-
| edge connector from an old floppy drive cable for expanded
| storage.
| tencentshill wrote:
| It's quite expensive to get a 10GBe-capable home router and
| switch, but this now allows you to use any old x86 PC and a
| 10GBe networking card to create one of your own. That's what
| I'm going to try.
| sulandor wrote:
| 10gig software switch is easy, 10gig software router medium,
| 10gig software dpi challange
|
| it's a nice exercise but the power and space requirements in
| relation to the performance will generally not be favorable
| unless you are severely constrained in up-front budget
| leptons wrote:
| I've been using DD-WRT x86 for a few years, so it's very
| similar to what Tomato x86 is doing. When I upgraded to 1gbit
| internet, my old high-end Netgear router that I paid hundreds
| of dollars for couldn't keep up. And I knew 2Gbit internet was
| coming, and now they're offering up to 7gbit fiber speeds.
|
| New routers with faster CPUs to keep up with the increasing
| bandwidths are costing about $700. No way am I spending that
| kind of cash for a router, even if it has the latest Wifi.
|
| Instead I bought a cheap $50 Dell from ebay with a quad-core i5
| CPU, I installed DD-WRT x86 on it, I put in a cheap 4 x 1gbit
| ethernet card, and I bought a cheap refurb Wifi 6e router and
| use that only for the wireless functions. All-in it's about
| $200. Now I can keep the same main x86 router hardware and I
| can keep upgrading my internet speeds as well as upgrade the
| wifi externally whenever I find it necessary (and I can find a
| cheap wifi radio).
|
| The DD-WRT maintainers were also very helpful (and in a timely
| way) when I requested they add a 2.5gbit NIC to the DD-WRT
| drivers, so now I have upgraded to a 2.5gbit network. And if I
| want to put in a 10gbit NIC someday, maybe they'll help out
| again. I know, I should move to something "more modern" than
| DD-WRT, but it suits my needs well for now, and someday I'll
| probably be moving to a different x86 based router software
| should DD-WRT not be able to keep up with my needs.
| vaporary wrote:
| I've been enjoying FreshTomato on my home router for a number of
| years now.
|
| Sometimes, though, there are network environments I'd like to
| implement which are difficult to configure through the webUI, but
| which would be relatively trivial from a Linux CLI. For example,
| I'd like to create an ESSID which is bridged to a tagged VLAN,
| but on which the router has no layer3 presence. Or, maybe I'd
| like to setup a wireguard link, but only send selective traffic
| down it using firewall marks and policy routing.
|
| What I'd really like is a way to use the webUI to setup my
| initial base configuration, and then flip a switch to turn off
| the webUI, and implement further changes myself by editing
| configuration files on the device and calling out to shell
| scripts when needed to run "ip" and "brctl" commands.
|
| Does anyone know if such a thing is possible with FreshTomato,
| OpenWRT, or something similar? Am I just thinking about this
| wrong?
| RiverCrochet wrote:
| I think in OpenWRT you can disable uhttpd in the Startup tab to
| prevent the Web UI from running.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| It has been many years since I've run any version of Tomato on
| anything, so I won't guess about the present state of that.
|
| But I think I can answer your question.
|
| These days, at least at home, I run OpenWRT on a Pi 4 (because
| it was cheap at the time).
|
| I use its web interface for the usual mundane poking and
| prodding.
|
| And when I want something special, I just add a simple startup
| script like I would have done on any other Linux box back when
| init systems were plain and dumb.
|
| This same thing should also work on any other OpenWRT
| installation that has a writeable filesystem (instead of, eg,
| SquashFS).
|
| And no, I don't think you are thinking of this wrong as a
| concept. It's a home network and not enterprise, and at the end
| of the day these things are all just Linux machines with a nice
| GUI. I think it is totally cromulent to mold them to your will.
| 9front wrote:
| Tomato ain't got nothin on OpenWRT!
| tracker1 wrote:
| Currently running OpnSense on an N100 MiniPC... while this
| wouldn't meet my needs, I know a lot of people it would work for
| in a SOHO / Forbidden Router configuration on a MiniPC.
| faebi wrote:
| Is it realistic to get 10gbits networking?
| tredre3 wrote:
| I really like Tomato's UI, it's very intuitive. Especially how
| easy it is to create virtual SSIDs and isolate them on their own
| VLAN. It's two clicks. It will create the bridge and the VLAN and
| the DNS for you. Comparatively, in LuCI you have to do all those
| steps separately in different pages and somehow know how to make
| it all work.
| whydoyouasking wrote:
| D is for documentation:
| https://images2.imgbox.com/26/dc/giFbE9qs_o.png
| rcarmo wrote:
| This is pretty nice. Sometimes I wish Tomato was as popular as
| OpenWRT in the SBC space.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-10 23:00 UTC)