[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Freedombox-discuss] FreedomBox as a home router to replace Cisco/Linksys

> From: Dan Ballance <tzewang.dorje at gmail.com>
>To: Sean Alexandre <sean864 at pobox.com> 
>Cc: freedombox list <freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org> 
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 5:56 PM
>Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] FreedomBox as a home router to replace Cisco/Linksys
>I like this idea but have close to no idea how technically feasible it is.
>Other threads on this list have suggested there may be NAT issues behind standard home routers that will be difficult for FreedomBoxes to automatically navigate without technical intervention from someone with more than Joe Public networking skills.
>Could using the FreedomBox itself as the router/firewall solve this issue as well as increase privacy?

It could if the ISP contract allows the user to hook up their own router and it isn't a double-NAT

I know some ISPs like to charge for hooking up more than one machine, meaning the user basically
pays for them to bring a wireless router and plug it in to their dsl modem or whatever.? In my own
limited experience the ISPs I've used haven't done any checking that would lock you in to only using
the router they provide, but I guess some of them probably make you register a MAC address with
them to get service.? I know a lot of universities do that.

I think from the user perspective, plugging in a FB _behind_ what their ISP already has installed is way
easier to set up and immediately start using, but less powerful (I'm thinking of the setup discussed
recently where it's basically piggybacking over Tor make connections).? Of course replacing one's
router with a FB-- if there isn't a double-NAT-- opens up many more possibilities for what you can do
with it.

Maybe the best of both worlds would be to make the UI for the easy solution (i.e., FB behind the
router), at least initially.? Even though it's less power for the non-techie user, it's less potential
frustration.? (A FB that the user can't get working certainly won't improve their privacy.) Then if
people want to set up more advanced services, they can ssh into the machine, and of course
as some of those service get tested and easy to set up/use they can eventually be merged into
the UI.

It's going to be running Debian, right?


Reply to: