Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Networking Open Source Upgrades Linux

OpenWRT 14.07 RC1 Supports Native IPv6, Procd Init System 71

An anonymous reader writes Release Candidate One of OpenWRT 14.07 "Barrier Breaker" is released. Big for this tiny embedded Linux distribution for routers in 14.07 is native IPv6 support and the procd init system integration. The native IPv6 support is with the RA and DHCPv6+PD client and server support plus other changes. Procd is OpenWRT's new preinit, init, hotplug, and event system. Perhaps not too exciting is support for upgrading on devices with NAND, and file system snapshot/restore so you can experiment without fear of leaving your network broken. There's also experimental support for the musl standard C library.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenWRT 14.07 RC1 Supports Native IPv6, Procd Init System

Comments Filter:
  • by CAPSLOCK2000 ( 27149 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2014 @11:28AM (#47457495) Homepage

    I just tried it but something is not working.

    # ping6
    unknown host

    Something is horribly broken here.

    • That's a feature, not a bug.
    • Slashdot doesn't have IPv6 support, for whatever reason
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's on the list. Right after adding SSL and UNICODE support, and before fixing Beta.

        • by xcyther ( 656630 ) <> on Tuesday July 15, 2014 @01:40PM (#47458885)
          Seriously. I've been wondering why (especially in this day and age) this site - for nerds, mind you - hasn't implemented SSL or IPv6. It boggles my mind.
          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Apparently it isn't stuff that matters...

            • Apparently it isn't stuff that matters...

              because unfortunately our dice overlords don't view slashdot itself as stuff that matters...

              • To be fair, It didn't get prioritized when Taco/Sourceforge/geeknet was in charge.

                The site is a victum of its success and its libertarian philosophy. The trolls killed slashdot.

          • Or an API that allows to implement third party apps. That would be an extremely tasty feature.
          • Just be thankful that today's headline doesn't have typos in it!

        • On SSL, they now have the choice of SSL or LibreSSL. If they wait long enough, they'll also have LibreUnicode and LibreIPv6 to choose from as well
        • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          It's on the list. Right after adding SSL and UNICODE support, and before fixing Beta.

          SSL is supported. Subscribers only feature though.

          Unicode is also supported. It does actually work, just that the whitelist of allowable Unicode codepoints is small. Adding in extra codepoints is on an as-needed basis. You're not likely to see those new emoji anytime soon.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I just picked it up at a garage sale!

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Maybe here:

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Albanach ( 527650 )

      Presumably people need to know version number. I think one of the big problems with the original wrt54g is network throughput. With cable services regularly hitting 50Mbps+ mine can't really cope - even on the wired connections.

      So, a question for those of you running openWRT or similar, which not too expensive router would you recommend to replace my decade old wrt54G?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        TP-Link routers are cheap and well supported by OpenWRT. At the low end, the TL-WR841N can easily route 50Mbps WAN to LAN and costs just $20.

        • It's 2.4GHz only, but I guess I could hang it next to my Linksys router, which can do 2.4 or 5 but not both at once, and which doesn't do IPv6 :-)

      • Mine is a TPLINK WDR3600. Simultaneous dual-band, gigabit everything, 2 USB ports, and even a real power button (!). It's been running "ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT (12.09, r36088) " for a little more than a year and it's great.

        • I'm running the same hardware. It's solid. Love it.
        • by richlv ( 778496 )

          for how long do you have it ? is it constantly on ?
          my asus wl500gp is having a recurring capacitor problem and i feel ready to replace it with something nice and perfectly supported by openwrt.

          what are the biggest problems you have faced with that device ?

        • by Eythian ( 552130 )

          Thanks, just ordered one to replace my aging WRT54GL.

      • I've been very satisfied with my Netgear WNDR3700 (gigabit, dual band, USB, etc.) to the point where I'll almost certainly get a Netgear when I replace next year (to move to AC). I have been running various svn checkouts of OpenWRT over the last 3+ years and haven't had many problems (and those I did encounter would have been avoided if I stuck to the formal releases).

      • I run Toastman's build of Tomato on RT-N66Us. I have 6 of them in various environments, from 6 months to 2 years deployed, and not a single lockup in prod operation. I achieve rates of 150Mb/s wired and 30-50Mb/s wireless. While speeds are not great, I'm mainly after features, stability, and the bandwidth monitor--and these are plenty faster than my ISP. These are dual-band as well, which is useful as one of the environments I'm in has a completely saturated 2.4 GHZ spectrum.

        I have had stability prob
    • I don't recommend the WRT54G(L) for OpenWRT hacking -- it's a little short on RAM and seriously short on flash. There's a lot of much nicer routers available, with more RAM, more flash, 802.11n and gigabit Ethernet. Somebody else in this thread mentioned the WNDR3700v2 [], which I'm very happy with (but check the board revision -- the v1 doesn't work well). The successor is the WNDR3800 [], which is the same board with more RAM.
    • by antdude ( 79039 )

      How about WRT54GL? :P

  • Why not systemd? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gothmolly ( 148874 )

    It's all modern and D-Bussy and neckbeardy. Why not use systemd since init is old school?

    • Why not systemd? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      because systemd is not and init system. It's and everything system.

      Look at the comparison with procd in the openwrt to get an idea of the unbounded nature of systemd.

      systemd is not suitable for and embedded system because it's too fat.
      systemd is not suitable for an non-embedded system, because the performance gains over the lighter alternatives are insignificant on a desktop system.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Which part of embedded, resource-constrained system did you not understand? Also, just because something is old doesn't mean it sucks. Just because something is new doesn't mean it is wonderful. The opposite is true, too, of course. ... but people have reasons for not liking systemd. A big one of them is the shitty attitude of the lead developer when it comes to fixing bugs and interacting with people. Some people are mean to others when those others deserve it for screwing things up royally. Some people ar

      • by Anonymous Coward

        True. But the systemd fanboys will mark it Troll.

        • Ok so original poster trolled tongue in cheek, grandparent replied seriously, you predict he'd be modded down and he is. Congrats, but you should have wooshed him too.

    • I am a pretty big fan of systemd myself, but it is not feasible on a lot of these devices for space reasons alone:

      [kel@octogon ~]$ ls -l /lib/systemd/systemd
      -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1317648 Jul 8 08:13 /lib/systemd/systemd

      And that is just the systemd binary, not including all of it's helper executables. The original WRT54G only had 4MB of flash on it, so systemd alone would take up more than 1/4 of the space. But you also need to get the kernel and a slew of userspace executables/libraries on ther
      • Someone mod the parent post up. Linux 2.6 is bigger than Linux 2.4. systemd is also much larger than init.

        From my router:

        root@Linksys E1200 v1:/sbin# ls -Fsl init
                12 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 12635 May 27 2013 init*

        12KB for init vs. 1.3MB for systemd. systemd privides no tangible benefit over init for a router (or at least to justify its size increase).

  • The big question... is there any remotely-mainstream 802.11ac router for which OpenWRT actually has non-broken 5GHz, beamforming, or any other advanced wi-fi feature? Or are we basically still stuck having to buy two routers... an open one running OpenWRT for routing (and other embedded-level networking tasks), and a proprietary one running stock firmware for non-dysfunctional 802.11ac? I want to use OpenWRT. Really, I do. But every time I'm in a mood to try it, I look at the litany of horrors in the "known

    • complaints on various forums that usually have "minor" bugs like "5GHz doesn't work" or "wifi randomly quits working after a day or two"

      Just to prevent people from getting the wrong idea -- OpenWRT is fully functional and rock solid on a lot of 802.11n hardware (including 40MHz support). I haven't played with 802.11ac yet.

    • I've been eying this myself, since I would like to upgrade my card to 802.11ac at some point as well. There are two pieces to the puzzle, user space support, and kernel driver support. AFAIK, both are supported but you need fairly new software. The ath10k driver supposedly supports 802.11ac and was included in linux 3.11. I believe newer versions of hostapd support 802.11ac but can't find any specifics about what version it was included in, but the newer the version, the better (so, preferably 2.2). An
      • by makomk ( 752139 )

        Unfortunately, some common routers contain a buggy early revision of the QCA9880 802.11ac chip that's not supported by ath10k and never will be.

  • by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2014 @04:45PM (#47460957)

    I pushed my router to dd-wrt a while ago. At the time, I liked the UI on dd-wrt better than openWRT. I also noticed some issues on my specific hardware for OpenWRT. How do they stack up?

    • by klapaucjusz ( 1167407 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2014 @05:55PM (#47461731) Homepage

      I pushed my router to dd-wrt a while ago. At the time, I liked the UI on dd-wrt better than openWRT. I also noticed some issues on my specific hardware for OpenWRT. How do they stack up?

      They're very different beasts.

      DD-WRT is a single, monolithic image, similar to a vendor firmware but with more features. What is available tends to be well integrated into the GUI, but if a feature is not available, you're pretty much out of luck (unless you're willing to install software by hand).

      OpenWRT, on the other hand, is a package based system: there's a base system and an extensive set of optional packages [] that you may install. It used to be the case that the OpenWRT GUI was not very good, but it has improved a lot in recent years, and I now find it fairly usable. Of course, not all packages are well integrated with the GUI.

      I'd recommend going with OpenWRT. The base system should be reasonably easy to understand, and you'll be able to easily install extra software when you find that you have unusual needs.

  • I have had a TP-Link WDR3600 for about 7 months. About 4 months ago I decided I wanted to start doing ipv6 and the TP-Link software didn't work with Comcast for ipv6. I found a pre-release of Barrier Breaker loaded it up, rebooted and it all worked. I guess it is time to upgrade to the release candidate. There were some issues with the second radio and supporting 802.11an but a few minutes searching on line and I had fix for that too.
  • How does the native support look on the official IPv6 compliance tests at TAHI?

    Not everyone wants DHCP at home, when router advertisements and automatic addressing are as good or better. How does this look?

    Does the router support Mobile IP?

    Are there any disabled kernel options relating to the protocol?

    How does it fare on IPv6 NAT?

  • I think it's also worth mentioning that this release supports DNSSEC validation. That's a bigger deal than the IPv6 support in my book, especially since it already supported IPv6 it just required knowledge to configure.

  • Someone? Anyone? Bueller?

Air is water with holes in it.