So I've had a user come to me asking for firmware for a WRT1900ACS V2.
I didn't know they had done an ACS V2?
Any specs or details?
The stock firmware certainly exists on the linksys page.

Edit:
I pinged the support team and got the following;

(Last edited by Lantis on 21 Jul 2016, 09:33)

The V2 is locked down based on the FCC regulations.

Didn't Linksys, in a press release, state the WRT series will continue to be Opensource?

Usually it takes a few months, following RTM, for a brand new router model to gain opensource support (IIRC, the ACv2 and ACSv1 didn't get opensource support immediately upon release, although I could be misremembering)

http://www.linksys.com/us/pressreleases … t-routers/

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases … 98938.html

Since the hardware is identical, I wonder why there is a v2 and what are the differences (if any) between them.

nitroshift

Any multi level building, antennas should be angled at 45 degrees or at there angled stops for best performances.

I agree, you may need some additional wifi coverage in 3 level building. I have a multi level house and have 2 APs going. One at each end.

@FurryNutz I know you can buy better antennas [in general], would that help at all for the specified usage?

Good question... I know there's a site that lists all hardware details about different routers, their SoCs, etc., but I can't remember the website. I know it's a wiki site [wiki site in general. not the OpenWrt wiki site]... does anyone know what site I'm doing a horrible job of describing?

(Last edited by JW0914 on 21 Jul 2016, 15:28)

Kind of depends on model router and if detachable antennas are supported. Most are like the WRT1900 Series line.

Other factors to consider is environment and building conditions. Concrete apartment will probably not see a great benefit of using better antennas.

I've seen various feedback regarding the use of different antennas. Some say there's better range, some say they don't see any better.

I think that in most cases, users can use stock antennas and instead of trying to push one router to the limits on WiFI in large homes or multi level building, users should consider the use of additional APs or extenders to help get better coverage at greater distances. When I'm not testing different routers, I have 3 total APs running in my house.

wikidevi, but its been offline for a number of days now.

Is this the same with the 1200 V1,V2? If so, someone on irc just stated they had forced linksys' hand by flashing open source onto a purchased v2, and now had the oem software for that device.

Edit: I think this whole v1,v2 issue is the FCC coming in to rule your world, and linksys complying. Are v2 units sold outside the US?

(Last edited by anomeome on 21 Jul 2016, 17:19)

what regulations? There are no FCC regulations requiring a lockdown.

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fc … g-routers/

Some manufacturers are locking down hardware due to the new FCC rules, but from what I understand Linksys will continue to make their hardware available to OpenSource, BUT a portion of Wifi hardware will be hard coded to follow the frequency/power rules.

But you are right.. the FCC isn't requiring a lockdown of the operating system, but the frequencies/power levels can no longer be adjusted out of spec. Linksys is following the rules, but other manufacturers appear to be just washing their hands of Opensource all together.

(Last edited by davidc502 on 21 Jul 2016, 20:44)

This: the radio firmware will be/ is locked down based om FCC regulations.

The FCC did not impose any new rules. They posted some proposed rules (which included asking specifically how to block loading DD-WRT), and then after the outcry they said that they were specifically not intending to block 3rd party firmware, and the proposed rules would not be implemented. But no new proposal has been created.

so anyone who claims that they are blocking alternate firmware because the FCC requires it is making up regulations that don't exist.

also, the announcement posted of the ACSv2 says that they are working on releasing the firmware, not that they didn't intend to do so (but if the hardware is identical, the same firmware should work, so we still aren't getting the full story.

I couldn't save the conversation as I was on mobile, however when I queried the release of a V2 as identical hardware being strange they couldn't give me any clear answers.
They were VERY clear however that the ACS v1 firmware was not compatible. That may indicate a change?

I would not expect a version change without hardware changes.

It's likely that cpu/ram/flash are the same, so per spec "it's identical" but if they are changing the switch/wireless/USB/esata/etc chipset or connection to the CPU, it could require some driver changes (ranging from trivial to drastic), but not show up in the specs that support knows about when comparing models.

Are radios on routers better than wifi card radios (i.e. are radios in the WRT series better than say an Intel AC card)? If not, or if there's no drastic loss in performance, end users who are looking for a midrange - high end router that's capable of running opensource firmware could simply build their own

(Last edited by JW0914 on 22 Jul 2016, 01:01)

yes/no/maybe :-)

it depends so much on the antenna connections, shielding, etc (not to mention drivers) that it's really impossible to tell without trying a particular combination. If the power on a particular system you plug an AC card into isn't as clean as the internal regulaters in an AP, it could make a big difference.

I didn't edit my post quick enough lol

If the response from OEMs is going to be to simply prevent devices from utilizing open source firmware, rather than simply locking down the radios, end users could benefit greatly by simply building their own router, with a guarantee of far better performance that any consumer store bought router. 

For example, my main router is my custom built router box running Sophos UTM, a SuperMicro A1SRI-2758F server board (4x LAN, 1 IPMI), OctaCore 2.4gHz Atom C2758 (20W), & 16GB of RAM in an In Win Chopin mini-ITX case.  Granted, I spent ~$650 on the build, however for $250 - $300 (same price as an ACS), one could built a midrange router box that would still outperform any store bought router.

(Last edited by JW0914 on 22 Jul 2016, 01:12)

Hehe

Has someone here build lede from latest source ?
It is building fine (i think?).
But for example, i selected WRT1200AC as target but it is generating image files for all mvebu based systems.
Also it is now building *.bin files instead of *.tar files. Is this right?

And how can i clear my config from leftover dependencies?
For examaple i select (main) package x which needs package y,z
Now i decide not to include package x anymore and deselect it.
Save config. But the dependencies y,z are still selected?
How to check/remove these unneeded packages?

And after flashing i now got the following in my systemlog:

daemon.notice netifd: radio0 (1296): command failed: Not supported (-95)
daemon.notice netifd: radio1 (1296): command failed: Not supported (-95)

But wifi seems working fine.

And i never noticed the zoneinfo packages? What are they used for?

(Last edited by shm0 on 22 Jul 2016, 23:36)

A change was pushed yesterday that made all sub-targets of a platform target be generated. I entered a note into irc, but did not enter a bug. I believe they are trying to reconcile builds to standard naming conventions across devices and so yes there is a name change.

My way of dealing with the dependency issue is to put aside a config diff before I add/try a package in my build, and just do a make defconfig with that config diff if I decide to back out of the change.

Have not noticed the message you indicate but I am using the "newer" firmware from the mwlwifi site.

(Last edited by Villeneuve on 23 Jul 2016, 00:37)

Does anyone utilize SNORT, and if they do, how bad is the performance hit [WRT1200]?

• I'm contemplating configuring a business router with it, however even though I'm familiar with SNORT [via Sophos UTM], I don't have an accurate performance comparison since my Sophos router has an 8 core 2.4gHz processor and 16GB of RAM.

Also, the WRT1200 I'm working on has a wireless config with the following paths

radio0
    option    path        'soc/soc:pcie-controller/pci0000:00/0000:00:01.0/0000:01:00.0'

radio1
    option    path        'soc/soc:pcie-controller/pci0000:00/0000:00:02.0/0000:02:00.0'

Is this correct? Or should it be 2 for radio0 & 3 for radio1?

(Last edited by JW0914 on 24 Jul 2016, 05:35)

it's correct...
i changed and i ended up with 4 radios....
it was the platform problem...
than i reverted back and just added platform...

@moccolo  Right, but the pci numbers.... should radio0 be

01.0/0000:01:00.0

OR

02.0/0000:02:00.0

(Last edited by JW0914 on 24 Jul 2016, 13:54)