OpenWrt One - celebrating 20 years of OpenWrt

Release and security announcements
193

I don't think that's quite right. Version 1.0 of the PD spec specified 5v, 12v, and 20v. Versions 2+ replaced the 12v with 9v and 15v, and those two are more common these days. But 12v is still "standard" if they're claiming compliance with the 1.0 spec.

I just grabbed 5 random chargers I had nearby, and 2 of them support 12v (Monoprice & Aukey). (2 Apple chargers didn't, and the last one was from Anker - it supports 12v on the USB-A port, but only 5v, 9v, 15v, and 20v on the type-C ports, so I'm calling it a "no".)

Chargers with 12v output are hard to search for, though, because it brings up tons of results for automotive things that take 12v input...

All that said, I agree with your main point that accepting 9v (edit: or 15v) would be preferable.

1 Like
194

@jow any chance you could collaborate with GL.Inet on something like MT3000/MT6000 instead?

7 Likes
195

Would the NVME port be suitable for the new line of Quectel 5g modems?

4g/5g cellular support is something that would be a minimum requirement for me as we do not have access to fiber.

196

No. Wrong key and no SIM slot.

EDIT: But in theory you can use an adapter similiar to this (arbitrary google hit): https://www.cm-tech.com.tw/en/2-2404-162899/product/M-2-B-Key-or-M-2-M-Key-to-M-2-B-plus-M-Key-with-Dual-Nano-SIM-Card-N266A-id634456.html

197

I'd kindly like to ask OpenWRT devs to stay on topic with writing software and not wasting time with hardware forays into self-built Bannana Pi routers. As others have said, it's preferable to leverage existing hardware.

Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik

198

It is up to the OpenWrt volunteers to decide what to do with their spare time while it is stated by the forum rules to stay on topic, hence the friendly reminder :slight_smile:

16 Likes
199

Based on the existing designs from Banana Pi, I would guess WCH CH224K will be used as the power controller for Type-C input.
Hard to say for sure but maybe this could be discussed with the ODM and ask for selecting different (more common) required voltage input on the Type-C (not sure about 9 V but 15 V seems reasonable, I guess). The problem I suppose is the fact that the platform requires several different supply rails, apparently ~5 different voltages, generated from several LDOs and buck converters. The lover input voltage is supported, the higher current would be needed from the power supply.

3 Likes
200

Lol! That's what I get for posting while tired. I've been using OpenWrt on and off since it's inception on the WRT54G, so I really should know better.

2 Likes
201

Exactly. And the topic is OpenWRT - a software project. Not hardware.

1 Like
202

OpenWRT is whatever those leading the project decide it is. If they decide to go into hardware then it's hardware as well.

8 Likes
203

The topic I want to talk about are some hardware specs. I use a Banana PI BPI-R3.

Usually a Banana Pi router case has a basic design. If you want more, you have to make it!
Yes, Sinovoip also designs and produces cases and some additional parts. The last case of BPI R3 mini was very impressive.

But, even for their own routers, the cases do not give you full access of all ports. For example the 26 Pin GPIO header, hole for a fan, additional holes for LTE antennas and access to M2 for SSD. The cases are for basic users.

In this context, I ask myself, how can the case for the BPI-R4 match together with a mikroBUS Port?
And the answer is: ony if you do not use it?
This could be a good strategy. Because for a "MAKER" this is not a problem!
The future will show how this will solved ...

The most mysterious question for me is: how many mikroBUS Ports the board will have?

In the Banana pi forum there is this:
"... MikroBUS socket for expansion modules"

But in this forum it is written:
"Expansion slots: mikroBUS"

-> more than one :smiling_face:?

With mikroBUS we may can get some expansions like Ethernet or SD Card:

grafik
grafik476×542 44.9 KB

I think mikroBUS is really interesting, because I found no Pi with it. Yes, there are adapter boards. But the decision for mikroBUS and against 26 or 40 Pin GPIO is very special!

Is it a PI or a Router? I'm interested to see what people will do with it!

Another topic is the MMCX Antenna connector. Thank you! On the BananaPi there is usually a IPEX1. For more than on time usage MMCX look more compftable.

And last is the easy connection (console) over USB-C. Good choice!

I hope the developers from Sinovoip will think about these usability increasing improvments and that the next Banana PI will benefit from this usefull specs.

If there were no BPI-R3 und R4 boards, I would consider to buy the OpenWrt One.
But the SFP and 4/5G modem connectivitys for fibe internet and cellular internet are attractive. I'm really concernd about the number of RJ-45 ports (OpenWrt One).

I'm not a programmer. For me the router specs make sense for software development and a big community. But there was a post from a guy who was afraid of commercialization. I understand his concerns ... . The most people are so focused on perfomance and possibilities (me too). This board is focused on reliability :+1:.

I found THE QUESTION about the purpose of the development of OpenWrt interesting. As much routers as possible or some main basic platfrom boards (as free as possible).

I'm finished with my hardware comment on this software platform :slightly_smiling_face:.

Thank you!

1 Like
204

I think you meant to say 2242 rather than 2042 there (?)

Additionally, will it be possible to also add a second screw hole for a 2230 SSD? (So could support either 2230 or 2242, similar to https://www.waveshare.com/pcie-to-m.2-hat-plus.htm)

I feel like the 2230 size is a bit more common than 2242, and perhaps a bit more likely for someone to have lying around (e.g. from upgrading a Steam Deck.)

(2280 would also be awesome, but I understand that there may not be space for that - maybe it can be on a future version that includes a switch.)

205

Anyone has written about the ISP side here. What's about the interfaces to WAN?
As I see, Openwrt One gives the owner a simple RJ45 on WAN site, may be a SFP for fiber connections or pcie-slot for 5G. But here in Germany you often need an extra DSL modem and unfortunately there are no DSL-gbics for more than 175mbit available.

Beside all I totally agree to an all-in-one device like Fritzbox for -sorry- dumb end user. And this end user don't want to discuss about "no server services on the router".
Give him a box with 4xLan, 1xwan or Sfp to wan. Eventually he want to screw, so he can add nvme storage and/or wifi (you see, I'm reflecting to R4).
A power supply with USB 3 jack is IMHO nonsense. With standard 12v you have more options and no struggling with messy standards. ATM my R3 is driven by a 4A supply. May be oversized, but was overcome from R2, which had a hard disk on top.

Please consider adequate cooling: as possible fanless.

And you have to built some "restricted Luci".

Beside in the accessories section a dumb AP would be nice.

206

ATM the proposal contain a copper ethernet port for WAN (either 1 or 2.5 Gbps, the respective other will likely be used for the LAN side). So no SFP/SFP* cake envisioned. PCIe seems to be planned in form of an M.2 socket, and there seem to be M.2 form factor 5G modems available (but that will require manual installation and will also require antennas).
Regarding DSL modems in SFP size, some do exist (and at least some are described as running pretty hot) but there simply does not seem to be a big market for profile 35b capable ones. Which SFP module does support profile 35b but only offers up to 175 Mbps, if I might ask?
Personally, my assessment is that DSL is on a slow way out and hence aiming a router to support a DSL modem might not be longterm beneficial.
On the 'optics' side we see some all-in-one router designs appearing on the market, I am not sure though whether that will be a long term trend or whether that is mainly caused by the current uncertainty about what optics will be needed in the mass-market (in Germany the question AON or PON is slowly resolving itself towards PON, but there the open question is GPON or XGSPON, and since both are expected to have quite some temporal overlap, it makes sense for a router maker to opt for switchable optics top increase the number of units produced for the common base-unit to harvest the benefits of mass production more, but I digress).

That user is not going to be attracted by the OpenWet One offering, and most likely never know it exists independent on the actual design... Unless the One will be offered for rent by big ISPs or will be available in stock in the bigger electronics chains I do not see e.g. the rest of my family ever notice.

I am honestly not sure that most of my wider family actually uses more than one LAN port at all, most simply use WiFi for everything; now that is anecdotal and my family might be totally unrepresentative, but my gut feeling is that WiFi only/mostly households are not that rare. Don't get me wrong, I wire up a lot of things and would need to rethink my network layout when switching to a single-LAN-port router (but I have enough switch ports in external switches, just at inconvenient locations), however the One is not my design so I do not expect it to scratch my itch completely (as they say) and I find the whole package quite compelling and will aim at getting one (whether it will act as router or AP will have to be seen)...

Well, given the EU regulations for mobile devices USB(-PD) based power supplies with USB-C outputs will become more and more common, so IMHO this is not a bad choice.

Not sure what you aim for exactly here; but my interpretation is you ask for a sort of toggle in the GUI which allows to quickly switch OpenWrt between its current configuration and dumb AP mode? If that is true I agree that this would be quite convenient (but I have not thought this through so do not know whether such a switch can be performed without requiring additional information from the user).

207

I agree, but then I´m wondering about the target group. Who should sell this device?

An other focus, my opinion may be wrong. And again comes the question for the target group.

Sorry, that´s a misunderstanding. Sorry for that.
At first (regarding to target group eg dumb user) there should be a safe web ui, whre the user cannot brick the device.

And the other theme is beside the Openwrt One should be an additional device as dumb access point also with the same quality standard as the One.

208

The decision on whether to go into hardware is exactly what this thread is trying to help those leading the project to decide. All you want is for them to go into hardware, so you are jumping the gun and posting leading statements in an effort to pressure them into a decision. They posted this to see if it would be worth going into hardware, if there would be interest from the community. I suggest you put a sock into it and quit posting leading statements until the community has completed weighing in on this thread.
So far I have seen lots of people saying "cool" but very few saying "I'll buy that" The fact is the number of people running OpenWRT on Pis' of any kind is vastly smaller than the number running it on other gear. There are far better mechanisms than this thread to judge if a hardware product would be successful, such as kickstarter, etc. If you want them to go into hardware that much I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and referee a kickstarter campaign. Until then, the Project is software, so stay on topic, please, and the topic is SOFTWARE.

1 Like
209

Do I? Not sure I've stated anywhere what my opinion is on whether they should or shouldn't proceed further with this idea. I've stated I liked the idea in principle, but that's a far cry from stating that I want them to go into hardware.

Such as?

210

'such as'

"OpenWRT is whatever those leading the project decide it is. If they decide to go into hardware then it's hardware as well."

As I pointed out they haven't yet decided to go into hardware. Thus, OpenWRT is not YET hardware, if it ever will be, and thus by your definition this entire thread is off topic. Which is ridiculous since the point of this thread is to solicit input thus by definition the entire thread is off-topic.

And you are sitting there criticizing me for being off topic in a thread that is completely off topic from what OpenWRT currently is.

The simple reality is you just didn't like what I said so instead of putting a logical response to rebut it logically, it you are just trying to shut down discussion by claiming some rules violation on thread posts that you aren't even following nor is this thread even following.

211

Why? The one would work pretty well as AP (one of the more common requests is more LAN ports, but for an AP these, by definition, do not matter all that much).

212

That's not a leading statement. It's a statement of fact. I'm not introducing a concept or encouraging anyone to agree with it.

No, I'm not. I've not said anything about whether you're off topic or not. Just that it's not up to you what the OpenWRT project is.

How can a thread from the OpenWRT project 'leaders' asking the community to input on a potential change in direction be 'off topic'? How exactly do you expect them to obtain community feedback?

I'm not. I was responding to your assertion that OpenWRT is purely a software project. I never stated (nor do I have the power to enforce) that any discussions should stop.

I must admit I do find it a little amusing that you are claiming that I am trying to stop discussions when you appear to be the one getting het up about people trying to discuss whether OpenWRT should move into hardware in a thread about exactly that topic...

2 Likes