On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Dave Taht wrote:
you may have posted this and I'm just not remembering, but do you have a
list of what's in CeroWRT that OpenWRT won't take upstream (and any info on
why they won't take the items)?
Daivd Lang
trying to break this down by what's a config policy vs what's code (or
significant config logic)
* Unbridged interfaces - routing only
simple config
* Device Naming by function rather than type
is this code or just a set of config settings?
* More open to ipv6 firewall
is this just default settings?
* Firewall using device pattern matching to avoid O(n) complexities in
firewall rules
This sounds like default settings.
* Babels on and preconfigured by default
any code here? or is just that it's there by default?
* Oddball IP address range and /27 subnets
simple config
* Polipo Web proxy
is this just a different default than upstream?
* Samba by default
simple config
* Faster web server
just a different default?
* Weird port for the configuration web server
simple default
* Pre-enabled wifi and wifi mesh interfaces
different defaults
* Huge amount of alternate qdiscs (like pie, ns2_codel, cake, cake2, etc)
any custom code here or is this just different kernel config options being
turned on?
And:
A build that includes all these things by default.
The vast majority of these seem to be config selections rather then code. Which
shows a huge amount of progress from the early days.
There seem to be a couple policy points that are worth trying to fight to get
upstream
1. Device Naming by function
2. Firewall rules by device pattern matching.
3. pre-enabled wifi and mesh interfaces
4. Samba default (see the recent discussion of common authentication)
5. possibly the web proxy
Things that are probably not worth fighting for
1. a build that includes all of this by default
2. all the alternate qdiscs enabled by default
3. weird port for the config web server
4. oddball IP ranges, /27 subnets, bables, and routing between interfaces by
default. (This is an approach that is perfect for the "super-duper" builders,
although this may just end up being a different default config)
any major disagreements or things I missed?
It hit me as I was finishing this that a couple things may combine here.
By doing device naming by function, firewall rules by device (which ends up
being by function), it may make it far easier to have alternate configs, one for
bridging, one for routing, and to have options to pre-enable the wifi and mesh
interfaces.
Thoughts from those who have been more involved with pushing things upstream?
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
