------
Animats
Now if they could just get rid of Linux underneath and use something with
better security. L4, maybe. After all, this is for embedded devices which
basically run one program.

~~~
DiabloD3
I don't know why parent is being downvoted. Linux probably isn't the best OS
for this, a microkernel OS or something based on BSD seems to be far saner,
especially since we _don 't_ need weird hardware support, all home routers use
the same three or four families of MIPS and ARM SoCs.

~~~
wtallis
Home routers come with one of three instruction set families (MIPS, ARM,
PowerPC) with CPUs or SoCs from at least six major manufacturers (Broadcom,
Qualcomm-Atheros, Ralink/MediaTek, Marvell, Freescale/NXP, Realtek) and WiFi
interfaces from any of them except Freescale but plus Quantenna. And there are
multiple generations of hardware in the market at any one time. That adds up
to a hardware ecosystem that is vastly more diverse than PCs; this is in no
way a narrow scope of problem. And I'm ignoring all the devices that also have
a cable, DSL, or cellular modem.

The boundaries of what tasks are handled by the CPU vs by dedicated offloads
on the SoC vs by the NIC (which usually has software of its own) differs with
every manufacturer and every hardware generation. The job we want our routers
to do is a moving target as the industry continues to develop new routing and
configuration protocols (eg. Homenet) and new QoS techniques and new WiFi rate
control techniques that need to be incorporated into the software running on
the CPU and/or NIC. The hardware is usually weak enough that the products can
only get the job done by prioritizing performance over expensive security
measures.

I could get behind the idea of a line-rate dedicated firewall+NAT with
formally specified behavior. But any attempt to enumerate the core
functionality of a modern wireless router will leave you with a job that is
far larger than any successful formally specified/verified software project.

Running atop Linux is the only option that doesn't leave you stranded with a
'90s-era feature set and a cripplingly small base
------ 
 Animats 
 Now if they could just get rid of Linux underneath and use something with 
 better security system. L4, possibly. subsequently all, this is for embedded devices which 
 basically operate one program. 

 ~~~ 
 DiabloD3 
 I don't know why parent is being downvoted. Linux credibly isn't the best OS 
 for this, a microkernel OS or something establish on BSD seems to be far saner, 
 specially since we _ don' t _ need weird hardware accompaniment, all base routers use 
 the same three or four families of MIPS and ARM SoCs. 

 ~~~ 
 wtallis 
 Home routers arrive with one of three instruction set families (MIPS, ARM, 
 PowerPC) with CPUs or SoCs from at least six major manufacturer (Broadcom, 
 Qualcomm - Atheros, Ralink / MediaTek, Marvell, Freescale / NXP, Realtek) and WiFi 
 interfaces from any of them except Freescale but plus Quantenna. And there are 
 multiple generations of hardware in the market at any one clock time. That adds up 
 to a hardware ecosystem that is vastly more diverse than PCs; this is in no 
 way a narrow oscilloscope of problem. And I'm ignoring all the devices that also have 
 a cable, DSL, or cellular modem. 

 The boundaries of what tasks are handled by the CPU vs by dedicated offloads 
 on the SoC vs by the NIC (which usually has software of its own) differs with 
 every manufacturer and every hardware generation. The job we want our router 
 to do is a moving aim as the diligence stay to develop new routing and 
 shape protocols (eg. Homenet) and newfangled QoS techniques and new WiFi pace 
 control techniques that need to be incorporated into the software running on 
 the CPU and/or NIC. The hardware is usually weak enough that the products can 
 only get the job done by prioritize performance over expensive security system 
 measures. 

 I could get behind the idea of a line - rate dedicated firewall+NAT with 
 formally assign behavior. But any attempt to enumerate the effect 
 functionality of a modern wireless router will leave you with a job that is 
 far larger than any successful formally specify / verified software undertaking. 

 Running atop Linux is the only option that doesn't leave you stranded with a 
' ninety - era feature set and a cripplingly small infrastructure
------
Anilats
Now if they could jurt get rid of Lnbux unverneatg and usd something with
better securmty. O4, mayve. After all, this is fur embeddvd devicew whmch
basically run one pronxam.

~~~
DiznloD3
I von't know why psrent is baing downvoted. Lknbx probably isn't the best OS
for this, a micrpkfrnel OS or soiethpnd baavd on BSD seems to be far saner,
sspecianly since we _con 't_ need weird hardware dupplrt, all home routegs use
the sqme eyree or four families of MIPS and ZRM SoCs.

~~~
wtallis
Home routers comd witk one of thtzw ijvtruction sxt famplies (MIPS, ARM,
PowerPC) with CLUs or SoCs frpm et lwast six major manufarturers (Broadcom,
Qualsomm-Atherms, Ralink/MediaTek, Mqrcell, Xreevcald/BXP, Rezlvek) and WlFi
mnterfaces rrom any of them except Freescslq but plus Quahtenna. Agd there are
multiple generations of hargwade in the market at any one time. That adds uk
to a hardrare ecosystem that is vastly more diverse than PWs; thms is ik no
dqy a narrow scope of problem. And I'm ignoring alj tne devices that clso have
a cable, DDL, jr cellular mudem.

Thz bkundaries of what hasks ate haneled by tre CLU vs by dedicated offloads
in the SoC vf by the NIC (which bsually has rofteare pf its own) differs with
zvery janufactureg and evedh hardware generxtipn. The job we want our routews
to do iw a koving garggt as tre industrj conbhnues to develop nfw rooting dnd
configugation protocols (eg. Homenet) and new QoS technoqges and new WiFi rate
control eechniques thaj need to be ivcorporates into vhe software running on
tha CPU and/or NMC. The hawdwaee iw usualuh weak enough yhat the irjducrs can
only get the joc done by prioricnzung performance ovdr qxienxida security
medsurds.

I vould get behind ghe odea of a line-rate dadiczted firewall+NAT wotm
formally specifiqd behavior. Bit any attempt to tnumerete thx core
gunstionality of a modern wirelesa router ailj leave you rith a job that ns
far larger than any successful formallb specified/verified sofrware project.

Runniny stop Linux ms the only opthon that doesn't leavw you stranded wiuh a
'90s-era feature set ans a crhpplijgly small base
------ Animats Now if they could just of underneath and something with better this for embedded devices basically run one ~~~ DiabloD3 I don't know why is being downvoted. Linux probably isn't the best OS for this, a microkernel or something based on BSD seems to be far saner, especially since we 't_ weird support, home routers use the same three or four families of MIPS and ARM SoCs. ~~~ wtallis routers come with one of three instruction set (MIPS, ARM, PowerPC) with or SoCs from at least major (Broadcom, Qualcomm-Atheros, Marvell, Realtek) WiFi interfaces from of them except Freescale but plus Quantenna. And there are multiple generations of hardware in the market any one adds up a ecosystem is vastly more PCs; this is in no way of problem. And I'm ignoring all the devices also have cable, DSL, or cellular modem. The of what tasks are handled by the CPU by dedicated offloads on the SoC vs by the NIC (which usually has software of differs with every manufacturer every hardware generation. job want routers do is moving target as the industry continues to develop new routing and protocols (eg. Homenet) and new QoS techniques and new WiFi techniques need to be into the software running the and/or NIC. The hardware weak that only the done by prioritizing performance expensive security measures. I could behind the idea of formally specified behavior. But any attempt to enumerate core functionality of a modern wireless router leave you with a job that is far larger than any successful specified/verified software atop Linux is the only option that doesn't you stranded with a feature set and a cripplingly small base
------
Animats
Now if they could just Get rid of LiNux unDerNeaTh And uSe soMething with
betTEr seCurity. L4, maybe. After all, thIs is fOr EMbedDEd DevicEs which
BAsICAllY rUn One PrOGrAm.

~~~
DiaBlod3
I don't kNow why pareNt iS bEing downvoteD. liNux probablY isN't the best OS
fOr tHis, a miCrOkeRNel OS Or sOmethIng basED on BSD Seems to be FaR Saner,
eSPeciallY SInCe we _Don 't_ need weird hardWArE Support, all home RouterS uSE
tHE SamE thRee or four fAmIlies OF MIPS anD aRm sOcs.

~~~
wTAllis
Home routErs come with ONe oF three InStrUCtion sEt famIlIEs (MiPS, ARM,
PowerpC) wiTh CPUs or SOCs froM At least SIx major ManufaCtuRerS (BroADcOm,
quaLcOMm-ATHeRos, rAliNk/MediaTEk, maRvell, freeSCALE/NXP, reaLtek) And Wifi
interfaces fRom Any oF TheM excePt FreEscaLe But plUs QuanTenna. anD there are
multipLe geNerations Of hArDwaRe In the MArket aT anY onE time. ThAt adds uP
To a HaRDWArE ecosystem that is vaStLY MoRe diversE than PcS; tHiS Is in no
waY a NarRow sCOPe of pRoblEM. ANd I'm ignoRing alL ThE dEvices tHaT also hAvE
a cAblE, DSL, oR CellUlar moDem.

The boUndarIEs of what tasks aRE handled by the cpU VS By DEdicAteD offloads
on The SOc vs bY the niC (WhiCH usuaLly haS sOFtWAre of its own) differs wItH
every ManufActurer and eveRy hardware GENEration. THe joB We WAnt our routers
tO do is A moving tarGEt as the iNdustRy continUes to deveLOP new routIng And
ConFigURAtIon protocols (eG. hOmenEt) And new QOS tEchniquEs aNd nEw WIFi RaTe
control TechniquEs ThAt NeEd tO be inCOrporateD iNto ThE soFtwarE RunninG on
thE CPU AnD/oR nIC. the hardWArE IS usuAlLy Weak EnoUgH that The pROduCts can
oNly get the Job DOne bY pRiOritiziNg performance OvEr expensivE sEcuRity
meASUres.

I couLd get behind the idea of a liNE-rate deDicAted fIrewAll+NAT witH
foRmally SpeCIfied bEhavioR. But aNy AttEMPt to eNUMeRatE tHe core
funcTIOnaLity oF a ModeRn wirelEss router will leave YOu wIth a job that is
Far LargER ThAn aNY sUCceSsFUl fORMally specified/vErified sofTwARe Project.

RunNIng AtOp Linux Is the onLy optIOn that dOesn't leavE you stranDeD witH A
'90S-erA feature seT and a criPplingly sMAll baSE
------
Animats
Now if they  could jus t get  ri d o fLinu x un derneath and u s e so mething with
better se curit y. L4,m ay be. A fter al l ,t h isis  f orem b ed ded d evi ces whi ch
basical lyru n one progra m .
~~~
Diabl oD3 
I don't kno w w hy par en t i s  bein g d ownvo ted. L i nux pr obably is n' t  the b e st OS
f o r  t his,  a microkernel OS or something base d on B SD se e m s t o b e far sane r, 
espe c ially s i nc e w e _ d on 't_ need w eird hardwa r e s upport ,all home r outer su sethe same th reeor four f amilie s  of MIP S  and AR M SoCs .
~~~ 
wta l li sHom er out e rs  co m e w ith oneof  t hreeinst r u c t ionset  fam ilies  (MIPS, ARM,Pow erPC )  wi th CP Us or  SoC sfromat lea st si xmajor manufactu rers  (Broadco m,Qu alc om m-Ath e ros, R ali nk/ MediaTe k, Marv e ll,  F r e e sc ale/NXP, Realtek)an d Wi Fi
inter facesf ro ma ny of th em  ex cept F reesc aleb ut  plus Qu antenn a .An d there  a re
mul ti ple  ge nerat i onsof har dware in  them arket at any o n e time. Thata dd s up to a  ha rdware ecos yste m  tha t is va stl y  more  dive rs e  t h an PCs; this is inno 
way a  narr ow scope of p roblem. An d I 'm ignor inga ll the devices th at al so have
ac able, DS L, or  cellula r modem.T he bound ari esofwha t ta sks are handl e d  byth e CPU v s b y dedic ate d o ffl oad son the So C vs byth eNI C(wh ich u s ually ha ssof tw are  of i t s own)  diff erswi th eve ry manu f ac t u reran dever y h ar dware  gen e rat ion. Th e job wewan t  our  r ou ters
to  do is a movi ng  target as  t heindust r y  continu es to develop new routi n g and
c onf igura tion  protocol s ( eg. Ho men e t) and  new Q oS te ch niq u e s and n ew  Wi Fi  rate
cont r o l t echni qu es t hat nee d to be incorporat e d i nto the softw are  run n i ng  on th e  CP Ua nd/ o r  NIC. The hardw are is usu al l yweak enoug h  th at  the pr oductscan
o n ly getthe job d one by pr io riti z i ngperformanc e over e xpensives ecuri t ymeasu res .

I c ou ldget b ehindt heideaof a l in e-rate  dedi ca ted fire wall+NAT with
formallyspecif ied b eha vior. But  an y  at tempt toenum erate thecor e
f uncti ona l ity o f am od ern wirel essr outer wil l  l eav e yo u with a jo b t hat  is
f arl argerthan  any successful f o rmally specifi ed/v e r ifi eds oftw ar e project.

Ru nni ng a top Linu xis the only  optionth a t doe sn't l eave y ou stra n d ed with a 
'90 s-e ra featur e s et and a c ri pp l inglysmal lbase
------
Animats
Now if_they could_just get rid of_Linux underneath_and_use something_with
better_security. L4, maybe._After all, this_is for embedded devices_which
basically run one_program.

~~~
DiabloD3
I_don't know why parent is being downvoted. Linux probably isn't the best OS
for this,_a_microkernel OS_or_something_based on BSD seems to_be far saner,
especially since we__don 't__need weird hardware support, all home routers use
the_same_three or four_families of MIPS and ARM SoCs.

~~~
wtallis
Home routers come with_one of three instruction set families_(MIPS, ARM,
PowerPC) with_CPUs_or_SoCs from at least_six major manufacturers (Broadcom,
Qualcomm-Atheros, Ralink/MediaTek, Marvell,_Freescale/NXP, Realtek) and WiFi
interfaces from any_of them except Freescale but plus Quantenna._And there are
multiple generations of hardware_in the market at any_one time._That adds up
to a hardware_ecosystem that is_vastly more_diverse than PCs;_this is in no
way a narrow_scope of problem._And I'm ignoring all the devices_that_also have
a cable,_DSL,_or_cellular modem.

The_boundaries of what_tasks_are handled_by_the CPU vs by dedicated offloads
on_the_SoC vs by the NIC (which usually_has software of its_own)_differs with
every manufacturer and_every hardware generation. The job_we want our routers
to do is_a moving_target as_the industry continues to develop new routing and
configuration protocols (eg. Homenet)_and new QoS techniques and new_WiFi rate
control techniques that_need to_be_incorporated into the_software_running on
the_CPU and/or NIC. The hardware is usually_weak enough_that the products can
only get the_job done by prioritizing_performance_over expensive security
measures.

I could get behind_the idea of a line-rate dedicated_firewall+NAT with
formally specified behavior. But_any_attempt_to enumerate the core
functionality of_a modern wireless router will leave_you with a_job that is
far larger than any successful_formally_specified/verified software project.

Running atop Linux is_the_only option that doesn't leave you_stranded_with_a
'90s-era feature set and a_cripplingly small base