Teach Your Router New Tricks With DD-WRT

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Serdar Yegulalp offers an in-depth look at DD-WRT, open source router firmware that can 'breath new life — and advanced features — into your old wired or wireless router.' Quality-of-service controls, iptables-based firewall, IPv6 support, DNS controls, Kai Daemon for allowing game console network tunneling, and a host of features for using your router as a public-access hotspot are among the many possibilities for hacking your router with DD-WRT."

Comments

Open-Source my ass!

[Heretic2]

Since when has dd-wrt been "Open Source?" It's very much closed-source. OpenWRT is actually open source, as in, you can download the code, modify, and compile it yourself. dd-wrt is closed, and often includes proprietary drivers.

Re:Open-Source my ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

No... its a pain though. http://svn.dd-wrt.com/browser http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Building_From_Source#Building_DD-WRT_From_Source

Re:Open-Source my ass!

[batkiwi]

TomatoUSB started life as a USB storage addition to tomato, but is now the "extended router list" distro for Tomato.

I run it on my linksys E3000 and love it. Gigabit, dual band N, and performance to spare.

Re:Open-Source my ass!

[ace123]

DD-WRT is open source in the same sense that the original Linksys firmware was open-source. Clearly, the GPL parts are open source, including all kernel modules and command line tools based on BSD/Linux. And yes, it must be possible to compile a bootable image with minimal shell support (otherwise they wouldn't be complying with the GPL). However, (this was true two years ago--haven't checked sense) DD-WRT has several binary blobs and closed-source components that handle higher-level tasks (for example, at the time I was looking into this, it was not possible to extend the webserver.)

Additionally, DD-WRT was still on the age-old nvram model of configuration, rather than using a read-write overlay filesystem to allow editing any configuration files. This means that some things were a pain in the ass to change once you have flashed the router, and building a custom image requires compiling a 10GB svn checkout. I'm sure you got it to compile, but I'm just saying that compiling isn't as easy as it should be. I (as did many other angry slashdotters) wasted several hours trying to compile DD-WRT. This is why the words "open source" in the description gave such a backlash.

Anyway, I didn't bother to figure out the compilation process, and I just went over to OpenWRT for my Linksys WRTSL54GS (kernel 2.6 broadcom with b43 -- works really well), Airlink AR-430W, and D-Link DIR-615. They all work really well.

That said, DD-WRT is a fine firmware if you want something that works and does more than the default images--I have friends who love it. It does Client Bridging which is the one feature I sorely miss from openwrt. So in my opinion it's a good choice if you are the sort of person who wants things to work and doesn't plan to write scripts or tweak things from source. And because fewer things are configurable and Brainslayer tests it on a ton of routers, you can be sure that an image will work on your hardware without tweaking anything (if it's on the Supported Devices list).

Re:no fucking shit

[Mashiki]

Paid advertisement for a lie? Because it sure the hell isn't open source.

Tomato

[RenHoek]

I used DD-WRT for some time, but if you want QOS bandwith managment for games (which was what I was really after), you have to buy your way into the forum where a premium version can be downloaded.

Anyway, after some more looking I found 'Tomato' which fitted what I was looking for a lot better. Feel free to try it for yourself.

http://www.polarcloud.com/tomato

Re:Tomato

[Anonymous Coward]

Tomato seems to be a little stale, at the moment. See TomatoUSB: http://tomatousb.org/

Re:old news and openwrt is better

[ustolemyname]

Since he just used the 'code' tag, technically you are looking at your font.

It turned my Linksys Router

[Roachie]

into a brick.

Which, interestingly enough, was an improvement. WiFi is from the devil.

Where did this article come from?

[afabbro]

Leave it to InfoWeek to be both completely confused and 5 years behind the times.

To wit, this article with the same premise from Lifehacker in 2006. And that was before DD-WRT sucked.

First, the author's router is not "an old router". In fact, it ships with DD-WRT. Take an old WRT-54G 1.0 and stick DD-WRT and that would be breathing life into an old router. All you're doing here is using a Buffalo-preconfigured (and encrypted, closed-source) version of DD-WRT.

But more to the point...DD-WRT? Ick. If you want QoS (as the author seems to), you need pay for the commercial version. The QoS in the free version is known broken and has been for quite a while, and there is little motivation to fix it. Also, old routers cannot use the QoS, because you need 4MB or bigger flash. Maybe it works in newer routers but who cares - there are plenty of better alternatives to DD-WRT.

Finally, for Slashdotters, let me say two words that will have you running screaming from DD-WRT: software activation.

Tomato is a fine, free (in all senses) alternative, and I personally love the Tomato-USB version.

Re:People still use dd-wrt?

[treeves]

Tomato?
Not until they legalize marinara.

DD-WRT works, but Linksys WRT54GS chokes 21 Mbps

[_Shorty-dammit]

I used DD-WRT for years on an old Linksys WRT54GS (I think that's the model) router and it worked great for me. But after upgrading my internet to 100 Mbps I found out it pukes out at around 20.5 Mbps or something like that, haha. Almost wanted to swear at my ISP, and then decided to try plugging straight into the new Cisco modem/router they gave me, and found all the bandwidth I was paying for was there after all. Haha. But plug back into the Linksys and it chokes me back to just over 20 Mbps again. Couldn't believe it.

Re:GPL Liicense & Humble Pie

[E.I.A]

Perhaps it is not news, but it "matters" to me. I am actually really happy that I read the comments on this article. I think there is sometimes a syndrome with geeks where they assume everyone is precisely at - or proximal to - their level/experience. My guess is that many readers are still unaware of the alternatives in firmware. And I still think that regardless of error, the discussion accomplished something; it introduced better options. I just finished a two-year degree in IT, and I am no wizard - not even close. Just 4 months ago, I was thrilled to discover open-source firmware for my router. Am I naive for thinking there are not more like myself? Do the little guys not count?