Is there a market for an open source router?

Is there a market for an open source router?
NewsGroups | Search | Tools
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 comp.dcom.sys.cisco  Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Is there a market for an open source router? Ramon F Herrera 06-30-2008
Posted by Rick on July 1, 2008, 12:15 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:00:54 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:42:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>
>> Please expand, unless, as usual, you're playing silly word games to
>> make yourself appear informed about a blatantly obvious subject to most
>> of the rest of is.
>
> Jebbediah talks like that crazy professor in the old made for TV
> Superman series with Jim Reeve.

What Superman show with Jim Reeve?

> IOW in rhymes and riddles.
>
> I think his name is Professor Pepper-winkle or something like that.
>
> Crook: "What will the kyrptonite do to Superman" Professor: "It will
> kill him" "Kill him it will".
>
> and so forth...

--
Rick

Pure Networks
Posted by Rod Dorman on July 1, 2008, 1:29 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:00:54 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>> ...
>> Jebbediah talks like that crazy professor in the old made for TV
>> Superman series with Jim Reeve.
>
>What Superman show with Jim Reeve?

He spelled George Reeves incorrectly.

--
                                        -- Rod --
rodd(at)polylogics(dot)com

Posted by Subway steel on July 1, 2008, 9:52 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
>> wrote
>> on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700
>>> a1bb0bfb-07ef-4d67-bef5-2f82875b2dd4@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com on
>>> 6/30/08
>>> 6:07 PM:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "While Cisco accidentally created an open source router a few years
>>>> ago, getting caught with Linux in its Linksys, the company never
>>>> exploited this as a feature, but treated it as a bug, blaming chip
>>>> supplier Broadcom.
>>>>
>>>> Netgear is definitely treating this as a feature."
>>>>
>>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2612&tag=nl.e550
>>>>
>>>> -RFH
>>>>
>>> That is an area where Linux and OSS should shine...
>>
>> Why? A router's a router. Granted, I'd probably trust a
>> Linux-based router a little more, since I can readily get
>> the source code for it -- but what does a router do? It
>
> It's a gatekeeper for your physical network.
>
> As such, there's a lot of traffic that can be blocked at
> the gateway that doesn't need to ever make it's way into
> the rest of your physical network.
>
> Ethernet is a broadcast medium, so the advantage of this is blatantly
> obvious.
>
>> routes. Could be Linux. Could be Windows. Could be BSD.
>> Could be a custom solution that is specific to that router
>> hardware, though nowadays microprocessors are extremely
>> common anyway, making a software solution practical.
>>
>> (Also problematic if there's a bug therein.)
>>
>>> set it and, for the most
>>> part, forget it... or even when you have to tinker there is a very
>>> limited
>>> amount of functionality you expect from a router... UI issues become
>>> less
>>> important (though, obviously, still are important just not as much as,
>>> say,
>>> on a desktop computer).
>>>
>>

Are you sure that you're talking about a router and not a firewall?

I realize that routers usually include firewall functionality but what
you're talking about sounds more like the functionality of the firewall
rather than the functionality provided by the router.

- ss


>> The standard "router UI" nowadays would probably be web-based.
>>
>
> Basically, a better appliance means you are less inclined to roll your
> own.
>
> --
> vi isn't easy to use. |||
> / | \
> vi is easy to REPLACE.
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com



Posted by Snit on July 1, 2008, 11:58 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
486a36b4$0$25953$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org on 7/1/08 6:52 AM:

>
>> wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
>>> wrote
>>> on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700
>>>> a1bb0bfb-07ef-4d67-bef5-2f82875b2dd4@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com on
>>>> 6/30/08
>>>> 6:07 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "While Cisco accidentally created an open source router a few years
>>>>> ago, getting caught with Linux in its Linksys, the company never
>>>>> exploited this as a feature, but treated it as a bug, blaming chip
>>>>> supplier Broadcom.
>>>>>
>>>>> Netgear is definitely treating this as a feature."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2612&tag=nl.e550
>>>>>
>>>>> -RFH
>>>>>
>>>> That is an area where Linux and OSS should shine...
>>>
>>> Why? A router's a router. Granted, I'd probably trust a
>>> Linux-based router a little more, since I can readily get
>>> the source code for it -- but what does a router do? It
>>
>> It's a gatekeeper for your physical network.
>>
>> As such, there's a lot of traffic that can be blocked at
>> the gateway that doesn't need to ever make it's way into
>> the rest of your physical network.
>>
>> Ethernet is a broadcast medium, so the advantage of this is blatantly
>> obvious.
>>
>>> routes. Could be Linux. Could be Windows. Could be BSD.
>>> Could be a custom solution that is specific to that router
>>> hardware, though nowadays microprocessors are extremely
>>> common anyway, making a software solution practical.
>>>
>>> (Also problematic if there's a bug therein.)
>>>
>>>> set it and, for the most
>>>> part, forget it... or even when you have to tinker there is a very
>>>> limited
>>>> amount of functionality you expect from a router... UI issues become
>>>> less
>>>> important (though, obviously, still are important just not as much as,
>>>> say,
>>>> on a desktop computer).
>>>>
>>>
>
> Are you sure that you're talking about a router and not a firewall?
>
> I realize that routers usually include firewall functionality but what
> you're talking about sounds more like the functionality of the firewall
> rather than the functionality provided by the router.

In the context of the discussion - OSS for a router - one can assume a
Firewall would almost surely be included.


--
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations. - David Friedman


Posted by JEDIDIAH on July 1, 2008, 12:15 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>
>> wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
>>> wrote
>>> on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:14:34 -0700
>>>> a1bb0bfb-07ef-4d67-bef5-2f82875b2dd4@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com on
>>>> 6/30/08
>>>> 6:07 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "While Cisco accidentally created an open source router a few years
>>>>> ago, getting caught with Linux in its Linksys, the company never
>>>>> exploited this as a feature, but treated it as a bug, blaming chip
>>>>> supplier Broadcom.
>>>>>
>>>>> Netgear is definitely treating this as a feature."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2612&tag=nl.e550
>>>>>
>>>>> -RFH
>>>>>
>>>> That is an area where Linux and OSS should shine...
>>>
>>> Why? A router's a router. Granted, I'd probably trust a
>>> Linux-based router a little more, since I can readily get
>>> the source code for it -- but what does a router do? It
>>
>> It's a gatekeeper for your physical network.
>>
>> As such, there's a lot of traffic that can be blocked at
>> the gateway that doesn't need to ever make it's way into
>> the rest of your physical network.
>>
>> Ethernet is a broadcast medium, so the advantage of this is blatantly
>> obvious.
>>
>>> routes. Could be Linux. Could be Windows. Could be BSD.
>>> Could be a custom solution that is specific to that router
>>> hardware, though nowadays microprocessors are extremely
>>> common anyway, making a software solution practical.
>>>
>>> (Also problematic if there's a bug therein.)
>>>
>>>> set it and, for the most
>>>> part, forget it... or even when you have to tinker there is a very
>>>> limited
>>>> amount of functionality you expect from a router... UI issues become
>>>> less
>>>> important (though, obviously, still are important just not as much as,
>>>> say,
>>>> on a desktop computer).
>>>>
>>>
>
> Are you sure that you're talking about a router and not a firewall?

The only real difference is the software it's running. The fact
that a router anymore is just a specialized PC of sorts has caused
that line to blur considerably.

Does Cisco even sell "real routers" anymore (running IOS or whatnot)
that don't have some sort of firewall capacity?

>
> I realize that routers usually include firewall functionality but what
> you're talking about sounds more like the functionality of the firewall
> rather than the functionality provided by the router.

I'm talking about what the hardware can do because it's overpowered
and sits on the physical boundary between networks. If it can run
something like snort then let it.

[deletia]

--

        iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback.                |||
                                                         / | \

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Similar ThreadsPosted
Open Source Network Management March 29, 2006, 1:13 pm
Open source network management application similar to CiscoWorks June 30, 2006, 4:59 pm
how to open a port on a Cisco 1800 series router February 19, 2008, 9:02 am
Data Recovery SOURCE CODE ( SOURCE CODES of Professional Data Recovery Software ) December 29, 2004, 9:03 am
Cisco owned (linksys wet11b) is cisco failing to see market demands? March 10, 2005, 10:02 pm
Source Group January 4, 2006, 1:36 am
....source based pbr + bgp? January 30, 2006, 5:59 pm
bgp source routing February 22, 2006, 8:12 am
Source and destination NAT June 25, 2007, 11:20 pm
source nat in pix 506 for vpn clients March 21, 2008, 9:27 am

other useful resources:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Telecommunications Industry Association
Electronic and Software Security Products and Services
International Telecommunication Union

Custom CGI Perl and PHP programming by 1-Script.com

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
The site map in XML format XML site map