I recently signed up for centurylink fiber and the install came with a free C3000Z modem/router. I replaced that with my own single board x86 computer running openwrt to both function as a router and handle the PPPoE authentication stuff so as to bypass the C3000Z all together. All went well, but I'm using a very old Netgear router as a wireless access point now. The performance isn't great and it only has a single 2.4 GHz radio.
Seeing as the Centurylink provided C3000Z is just sitting around I was curious if anyone else has successfully repurposed one of these as a wireless access point. None of the modem functions would be required, so I thought it might be possible to ignore that and still flash it with openwrt and use only the lan / wifi functionality.
I didn't see this listed in the supported hardware list or find any forum topics on this model, so I'm guessing if it is possible it might take some work. But has anyone done this or have any idea if it would be possible with openwrt?
Is there any activity afoot to create an OpenWRT image that is capable of running on this device?
I was able to obtain the source code (it is Linux based) for the C3000Z in fact and the object code for non open source drivers they use (I had to contact the manufacturer in Taiwan). I have two of these modems (one I am using currently in bridge mode as there has NEVER been a single firmware update for it and therefore I trust not its firewall capabilities).
CenturyLink a few days ago upgraded my service to bonded DSL 80Mbps. I would like to have a bonded DSL modem that also supports OpenWRT (my C3000Z is still what I use, though they presented me with a free C4000BG which I have yet to unbox).
I also did not see the C4000BG in the TOH for OpenWRT though I have yet to research that modem and to find out its manufacturer and ostensibly what open source base it is using.
Well indeed I can appreciate that perhaps at this late date an exercise in research to instantiate OpenWRT upon the C3000Z might lead to a rather diminished return, though, I think it would be useful to do anyway.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the C4000BG is a very current and capable device that is surely worthy of attention due to its deployment across some several of the ISPs in the US alone.
I suppose that despite the interest in seeing the data substantiated by those links, what was it you intended me to draw from your response?
Thank you in advance for your attention to the matters at hand in the instant case and do have a most safe and healthy day.
Those photos reveal the chip maker and SoC, in the case of the C4000BG, searching the markings on the chips produces zero hits, which isn't great news, from an openwrt point of view.
I can certainly appreciate that in the absence of identifying the chips being used and being able to obtain datasheets on them any comprehensive attempt to get OpenWRT going on that device would be a huge challenge in such an instance.
Hopefully research will yield greater information on these chips as times moves forthward.
Hmm. Regarding the C4000BG, I enabled shell access (SSH) from the web GUI and putzed around in there (I was trying to confirm that there wasn't a way to reboot this device from the shell) & thought I saw that it is OpenWRT based. Wouldn't that imply availability of source code under GPL2 from Axon? I seem to be blocked from accessing the device now (Connection closed by 192.168.0.1 port 22 rather than a permission denied error if I type in the wrong password) and I don't know how to re-enable it so I have no proof but that is what I remember seeing (I think somewhere in /proc/ is where I saw it?).
P.S. I cant even figure out who makes this. Which Axon is this? Is it the police equipment company (bodycams & all the IT infrastructure that goes with it, tasers, etc.) or some other company?
P.P.S. Oh, I see Frollic's post. It has nothing to do with Axon. I don't see any links to FTPs or Githubs at https://www.gemteks.com/ .
Linux version 4.9.256+ (jenkins@baxon-nuc-11) (gcc version 6.3.0 (OpenWrt GCC 6.3.0 v19.07.2_intel) ) #0 SMP Tue Apr 6 21:27:48 UTC 2021
I guess that doesn't matter in terms of having source code available. It's Linux inside so that automatically makes it some kind of GPL so source code should be available (whether it actually is is another matter).
The version does seem to indicate it's OpenWRT, though. I assume that means making a custom firmware based on it should be very doable?
Let me say first that my C3000Z continued to work (and supports bonded DSL) so I did not even open the C4000BG yet to even take it out of the box (granted I do want to deploy it if only for its Wi-Fi 6 capabilities).
The foregoing notwithstanding, it will surely have an FCC ID number on it and by proxy the actual manufacturer should be clear from the fcc.gov or fccid.io websites.
I think the best way ahead is to find out the manufacturer and make a request for source code. I actually did that with the C3000Z (some company in Taiwan) and they sent me links to all the code and even gave me compilation instructions! However, they did not have an upgraded driver for the DSL modem in it so I was unable to try to really build a newer firmware for it with a later Linux kernel. This is surely an impeller to me to switch to the new C4000BG too. That said, my C3000Z is in bridge mode facing a pfSense box that is well configured so I do feel secure with the C3000Z for the moment though the C4000BG is surely much nicer of a device!
I am confused, I looked at the link and was able to find this: https://fccid.io/MXF
which substantiated:
Mr. Bill Change - billchang@gemtek.com.tw
I presumed you just googled it and did not read it at all when you stated that it was not there. Perhaps this is the wrong information, but I think its worth email this Change fellow and finding out from him the correct point of contact for the company and how to get the source code. I will transmit an email to him now.
It was intent upon being matter of fact, not rude. Plenty of people in these forums think think they are being so clever and kurt. Oh did you try googling this or that? Of course I did. Anyone in one of these technical forms asking the level of questions that are asked here would have done that. To provide unvetted or unchecked information diminishes the confidence one would have in someone's response. In the event the person actually believed they gave correct information, it is surely worthy of pointing out is lack of accuracy so others are not mislead that might not know better.
I am sure if it sounded rude, it was just meant to be matter of fact with no rudeness intended. That said, the entire OpenWRT was developed by other people and I never said I didn't want to work on developing anything I just asked some initial questions to see who might be, who might have insight, and who might be interested.
As I always say, if a wise man can learn from a fool and fool can learn from no one, then how did so many fools end up having wise men as their students?
