On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:13:38 -0400, Sean Alexandre <[email protected]> wrote: > > Maybe the best of both worlds would be to make the UI for the easy > > solution (i.e., FB behind the router), at least initially. Even > > though it's less power for the non-techie user, it's less potential > > frustration. (A FB that the user can't get working certainly won't > > improve their privacy.) Then if people want to set up more advanced > > services, they can ssh into the machine, and of course as some of > > those service get tested and easy to set up/use they can eventually > > be merged into the UI. > > It would be interesting to know what percentage of potential FreedomBox > users are required by their ISP to use an ISP provided device for NAT. > Anybody have any numbers or guesstimates for this? Or, any ideas on how > to find this out?
It's on a provider-by-provider basis. Figure out how many providers there are and what their policies are (dslreports.com is a good start), and you've got your answer. Might be worthwhile to track this on the wiki. My ISP, who shall remain nameless, runs the single most hostile network I've ever been on. They register their router's MAC for you and charge you $10/mo for the privilege of depriving you of the root password on a device that doesn't actually forward any ports properly. The only reason I'm still with them is the challenge: if we can make the FBX work here, it'll work just about anywhere. Nick
pgpWT82wZlkGT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
