7 ms·

OpenWrt Community question: What do you want to see in OpenWrt?

78 points by voxadam 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
incomingpain 2y ago
I used to be a openwrt contributor. It was never anything fancy. Automatic firmware updates would be my vote if i could vote. I wish they had add "next gen firewall" to the list. Go compete with palo, fortinet, or sonicwall. Be able to have threatfeeds blocking. Having those extra features would be huge.
- egberts1 2y ago
  What? No nftables?
  - cbzbc 2y ago
    They moved to nftables a release ago, fw4 uses nft under the hood, and there are hooks provided if you want to run your own rules. https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/firewall/misc/nftables https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/firewall/misc/nftables
- pavon 2y ago
  Yes, a built-in updater would absolutely be my vote. The OpenWRT device knows exactly which firmware build it needs, so having it download the update directly would be much faster and less error prone than having me do it. I'd still prefer to manually click to initiate the update on my schedule, but the process could be more streamlined.
  - toast0 2y ago
    Attended Sysupgrade seems like the solution for this. It looks at your packages, does a cloud build for your board with your packages and you can push a button to update. Be aware if you're on snapshot, that the packaging situation is iffy right now. opkg is being replaced with apk, and there's some rough edges. I had a sysupgrade build that ended up with neither package manager, and the automatic tool doesn't currently work for doing new builds from an apk system. My wishlist item would be less churn or at least replacements should integrate as well as the old version.
    - pavon 2y ago
      Thanks, I wasn't aware of that package. I'll try it out. It should definitely be added to the default install once the devs are satisfied that it is stable.
  - dehrmann 2y ago
    The main issues with the current upgrader is it doesn't install old packages and it can't migrate breaking config changes.
aceazzameen 2y ago
I remember configuring my openwrt router wasn't fun. I'd say there's room for improvement with the UX, but it's possible it's already been improved and I don't know about it. I haven't bothered updating to the latest available versions simply because I remember the initial setup being so time consuming. I'm afraid I'll lose something with an update and have to go through the trouble again. It's my own conundrum.
- brokenmachine 2y ago
  I did it recently and it still wasn't fun. I bought an OpenWRT-supported router with an idea to upgrade from my older dd-wrt router. I wanted to set up wireguard but saw the page about it and got scared, so for the moment I'm still using the old router. It seems built not even for normal nerds, but for network professional nerds.
  - aceazzameen 2y ago
    Your last sentence seems accurate. All being said, I still love how solid the router has been over the years.
actualwitch 2y ago
I am surprised (hardware tokens based) luci 2fa is not on the list, I would think it is table stakes at this point.
- evoke4908 2y ago
  Why would you want 2fa on your router? You really should never expose the management interface to WAN, it should be locked down to only your local network. If you for some reason absolutely need to manage it remotely, that's why we have VPNs and SSH keys.
  - actualwitch 2y ago
    So that infected tv/iot device doesn't bruteforce your router's admin account. I know you could set it up so it stops listening on 0.0.0.0 and firewall exists, but having 2fa on web ui and removing ssh should bring good enough security without much hassle.
    - nine_k 2y ago
      Why remove ssh from the LAN? Brute-forcing a cert-based login is unrealistic, and passwords should of course be disabled. You can add a passphrase to your ssh key to make it useless when stolen. What am I missing?
      - actualwitch 2y ago
        Yes, what you describe (or storing ssh key on yubikey) would be a more secure setup. I like the web ui though, so having that be available from any device including phone in a reasonably secure way would be great IMO. You can do pretty much anything via uci so when using web ui I see no reason to leave ssh running.
- throw846742 2y ago
  I just wanted to say - about the same time you commented on hacker news I commented on openwrt forum about this feature :) https://forum.openwrt.org/t/community-question-what-do-you-want-to-see-in-openwrt/216706/16?u=kotoko https://forum.openwrt.org/t/community-question-what-do-you-w...
Salmonfisher11 2y ago
API for central management of APs. And a server instance to do this.
- zombielinux 2y ago
  Absolutely. That's one thing that ubiquiti and the like do very well. Combine that with the openwrt wiki/databases and you can support a LOT of different hardware with different capabilities relatively easily.
esafak 2y ago
Do new consumer routers still "need" aftermarket firmware?
- anticorporate 2y ago
  That's a very subjective question. What do you want your router to do, and can it do that out of the box?
  - esafak 2y ago
    Beyond features, it's also about reliability and security.
- MisterTea 2y ago
  You mean firmware for all the proprietary hardware they are full of like Wifi? Likely yes.
- PrismCrystal 2y ago
  I don't think you realize how powerful OpenWRT is. It's a whole Linux environment where you can write your own shell scripts and schedule jobs, etc. If you have created a set of your own personal customizations over the years, then it is nice that you can bring them over onto any subsequent OpenWRT-capable router you buy.
- PaulKeeble 2y ago
  Two reasons 1. Updates, every single router manufacturer abandons their routers within a few years, so you either keep buying new ones when the updates stop or you use open source firmware that extends that life until it's obsolete. 2. OpenWRT (and the others) expose all the features you need where manufacturers often simplify this or charge you extra for them. The hardware becomes use to utilise as you please. I wish Netgear and others directly supported open source firmware like they did in the past.
- dehrmann 2y ago
  How much do you trust them to get it right and do security patches? There's a chance D-Link's problems are common across vendors, and they're ones being honest about it.
egberts1 2y ago
First thing I want to see is the ability to configure beyond the basic default settings. Things that should not require configuring are Basic Common Criteria, WHONIX settings, Configurable everything. For now, I am cobbling something akin beyond Debian APT configuration: https://github.com/egberts/easy-admin https://github.com/egberts/easy-admin Warning: Bash programming.
evanjrowley 2y ago
I'd like to see more collaboration between OpenWRT and SBC makers like Banana Pi. While I love FriendlyELEC and GLi.Net for creating fantastic OpenWRT hardware, I abhor the fact that I they use OpenWRT forks. As an OpenWRT user, I really want to just upload my config files and hit the ground running. Not interested in fooling around with the user interfaces of these 3rd party spinoffs. I'd also like to see the Wiki examples supported by complete configurations. A lot of the routing examples don't show enough of what's actually required to make them work. Perhaps create complete configurations that can be applied to a virtualized OpenWRT instance?
- frankharv 2y ago
  BananaPi dont make anything from what I see. SinoVOIP is one manufacturer but who will make up the boards Device Tree Overlays???? Leave it to poor saps on a Wiki to do it for them... Raxda has tried to support some but they use a shitty old u-boot Linero tree like many of these joke boards. Hello. Please upsteam your work and get rid of the 2017 Uboot tree. Geez
- likeabatterycar 2y ago
  Is it really a burden worth complaining about to overwrite the factory fork with OpenWRT? It takes five minutes of your time. You should be doing this regardless, even if it shipped with vanilla OpenWRT, because factory firmware is often outdated out of the box.
  - evanjrowley 2y ago
    This is all true, but then I have to wonder if the fork of OpenWRT they're using has drivers for hardware outside of the mainline.
zigzag312 2y ago
Streamline configuring common things. Just recenty I wanted to quickly create guest wifi on AP. After following a long guide from the official wiki, it didn't work. I probably missed something and could make it work, if I would invest some more time. But instead, I just enabled a hotspot on my phone. Both AP and router are on OpenWRT.
- evoke4908 2y ago
  Honestly, guest WiFi should be a one-click adventure, not a weeks-long trawl through dozens of outdated wiki pages and forum posts from years ago. Pretty much anything other than the most very basic configuration is unduly difficult. While it's certainly nice to have every conceivable setting availble to you, only a fraction of a percent of people even know what they're all for or how to apply them. What OpenWRT needs most of all is for anyone to be able to walk up and find the button that does what they want. Even for technically advanced users and career programmers, OpenWRT is obtuse and confusing. You have to spend hours researching how to do anything even slightly more complex than attaching an AP to a LAN bridge.
  - 9x39 2y ago
    Unfortunately, that seems unlikely given OpenWRT (and DD-WRT before them) seem to prefer tinkering than making user-friendly products. It's one thing if it's a simple functional UI on the cheapest hardware possible, but when people are flashing hardware that cost $100, 200, 300 or more, you could have just bought into a more functional ecosystem/OS. Things like Unifi, Eero, and Mikrotik kind of obviate the need for custom firmware with bad UI. It's not 2006 anymore with Linksys WRT54GLs. Guest networks, meshing, tunnels, routing protocols, basic traffic shaping and policing -- these are all point and click or even automatic in these ecosystems to varying degrees, all for less effort than I think you'd spend on a WRT setup. Maybe their future is in low cost embedded boards and not home prosumer gear?
evoke4908 2y ago
Disappointing that "rust lol" is the top option in the poll, and none of the other options are about usability or utility. No one gives a single shit what language the thing is written in. What users care about is how monstrously complex and difficult it is to use OpenWRT. Anything more complex than changing SSID and password requires trawling through two different outdated wikis and years-old forum posts. That's if your search engine can even find something other than thousands of people asking the same question over the years. OpenWRT needs to be usable and approachable. Any random person off the street should be able to walk up and configure their network. Even for highly technical users it's a struggle to do anything. It does not matter one single bit whether there's rust in the codebase if it's never run because no one can figure out how to use it. Rust is not a feature. It's an implementation detail that absolutely no one cares about and does not affect the user in any way. I'm really sick of this shit.
- actualwitch 2y ago
  I give a shit what language the thing is written in. Right now it's c for uhttpd + lua for luci. I would prefer to cut as much of both as possible from firmware of devices on my network. Not only that, trying to write decent modern UI on top of this stack is not worth the hassle and it dramatically reduces number of people who can volunteer such work.
- steveklabnik 2y ago
  You can't extrapolate with polls with so many votes. I'm here an hour after you and Rust is at 4%. There's only been 66 votes so far, I bet you just ran into it very early.
- likeabatterycar 2y ago
  Very true. I recently wasted days trying to setup IPSec on OpenWRT with no success. IPSec support is broken into dozens of packages without proper dependency resolution. No GUI support. Sparse documentation, and what little documentation is out there is outdated and mostly consists of sample configs rather than true documentation. You see, OpenWRT likes to break configs from version to version and the docs are never updated. You can't follow documentation from upstream because OpenWRT auto-generates the package's config files from its own configs. Which are sparsely documented. "Helpful" forum posts mostly suggested to "use Wireguard" with a notion that IPSec is an archaic protocol that is not worth anyone's time to support, and the user is dumber for trying to use it. Hardly.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Last time I tried it (~5 years ago) I think that I had trouble wrangling all the antennas to get them to cooperate on 5ghz. Maybe I'm wrong- it was awhile ago. wrt3200acm
lnauta 2y ago
About a month ago I would've said the automatic upgrades. But a few weeks ago I tried to upgrade, my custom setup couldnt be resolved by the image builder (probably old software installed). I decided to backup, export the uci commands too and do a clean install. Setting up was super easy from the uci commands and it turns out the rest of my setup was not essential. Then I had to join a vlan for my new ISP. That was a tough one! Evenings of reading threads and going through documentation and there was no clear answer. In the end I asked an LLM and the instructions were so easy, it made me wonder how I missed it. So I would join some other calls in here for common setups.
variadix 2y ago
Make it less confusing to setup VLANs
pcl 2y ago
1. Simple Multi-WAN support in the UI. Take a look at the Fresh Tomato UI for a good example of how to do this. 2. Easy tailscale support. If my router goes wonky, I really want to be able to get to it, and there’s no guarantee that I can connect directly through my upstreams.
amluto 2y ago
Multi-AP. I don’t care about “mesh”, aka wireless uplink, personally, but I do care about the ability to do a competent multiple-AP deployment. Beyond just synchronizing configuration, I consider 802.11k, v and r to be table stakes. And I don’t mean “we use hostapd and you can, in theory, turn it on”. I mean actually deploying multiple instances, using an actual supported, documented and easy configuration, and ending up with a correctly configured network or three that actually work across APs near-optimally. And I should be able to configure and manage this all from one place. Heck, this should be the default configuration. The fact that OpenWRT can’t do this is why I don’t use it any more. Otherwise I rather like OpenWRT. There’s an open-source implementation of a WiFi alliance spec for Multi-AP called prpl that’s even based on OpenWRT. I’m sure it’s a mess and supports all manner of undesirable crap, but the good parts could be a good place to start.
- MezzoDelCammin 2y ago
  That and so much that! Much as I like OpenWRT, it's still quite a pain to cover anything like an older (thick walled) house with more than one floor. I'm about to redo one of those networks as my Christmas holidays project and I dread the day I need to reconfigure the APs.
- FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago
  Something like Aruba Instant On would be awesome...
  - cmxch 2y ago
    I’d be fine with just plain Instant where it can group up APs from one master. Instant On would just be icing on the cake.
- gforce_de 2y ago
  Of course this possible and working: https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/roaming https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/roaming Follow the usteer path.
pseudosavant 2y ago
The core foundation of OpenWRT is very solid. It needs items that make using and maintaining OpenWRT devices easier. A way to have centralized management of multiple devices (why do I have to manually update my SSID on every AP?). Make it easy to update (like Attended Sysupgrade). Make common 'extras' easy: setup a Wireguard VPN server, connect your network/wifi to a WG VPN, use DNS over HTTPS.
shmerl 2y ago
Easy way to set it up to run as a wifi access point by default, not as a router.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
I want to see de-coupled DNS and DHCP by default so I do not have to manually replace dnsmasq with odhcp and nsd.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
  https://openwrt.org/docs/techref/odhcpd https://openwrt.org/docs/techref/odhcpd
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    Out of the box, isn't odhcpd just for IPv6 DHCP, with dnsmasq for DNS and IPv4 DHCP?
    - 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
      "odhcpd-ipv6only" package is pre-installed along with "dnsmasq" I routinely uninstall this combo and replace with "ohdcpd" I prefer authoritative DNS operated by me over recursive resolvers operated by third parties so I prefer something like nsd (compiled with --enable-root-server) as opposed to dnsmasq Personally, I have no need for IPv6 on the LAN but there is no "odhcpd-ipv4only" package
bobthebutcher 2y ago
Something vaguely equivalent to a liveCD boot mode? Every once in a few years I seem to take a leap with some device to see if I can convert it to OpenWRT or update it once I've done so but I'm always a bit stressed by uncertainty.
CursedSilicon 2y ago
I am an absolute niche but I'd love to see better x86 (well, x64) support OpenWRT absolutely blows PFsense/OPNsense out the water in my experience. I don't need a bajillion different configuration options, I just want a tiny PC that can route packets effectively and maybe do a bit of port forwarding. But won't keel over and die when I download lots of "Linux ISO's" on my fiber internet connection I dropped PFsense after the Wireguard debacle where they tried to force broken code into the FreeBSD kernel [1] OPNsense meanwhile ate its own EFI boot partition after a system upgrade and rendered itself unbootable. Not great! OpenWRT on x64 feels more like a "test system" than something to run in production. Being able to upgrade-in-place until recently was "just dd the disk image to your target boot drive!" instead of having some way to properly install or upgrade the system Despite this it also still limits itself to about 100MB for the rootfs partition. The SSD I've installed is some junk 60GB no-name brand, so I guess I'm safe as long as it can do wear-levelling. But when OpenWRT themselves have devices with gigabytes of eMMC flash supported it feels a bit restrictive for a default. Due to being optimized for routers with tiny flash and memory everything is broken up into as many tiny pieces as possible as well. Want to run hostapd? There's about 4 different options for which hostapd you want. Want a web UI? Well install LuCI via opkg/apk. Nothing comes "batteries included" so much as it comes "individual lego pieces" I love OpenWRT. It's built like an absolute tank and yet is simple enough to make even the most in-depth changes absolutely easy. If they were willing to push upward into more standard x86 kit they'd give PFsense and its contemporaries a serious challenge. SmoothWall, IPCop and all the others have long since died out for "free Linux router/firewall appliance" [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/buffer-overruns-license-violations-and-bad-code-freebsd-13s-close-call/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/buffer-overruns-lice...
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
  "I am an absolute niche bu I'd love to see better x86 (well, x64) support" I'll second that, maybe not for the same reasons. I have numerous static binaries built for x86-64 that I would like to be able to use on new OpwenWRT installs. Because the OpenWRT x86-64 support is lacking I only use it on MIPS and cross-compile or, if it is a tiny program, compile natively on the router (slow). And I stick to NetBSD for x86 routers.
rrr_oh_man 2y ago
As a user, I would pay serious money for a router where I can freely use the eSIM of my choice.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

78 points by voxadam 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

I used to be a openwrt contributor. It was never anything fancy. Automatic firmware updates would be my vote if i could vote. I wish they had add "next gen firewall" to the list. Go compete with palo, fortinet, or sonicwall. Be able to have threatfeeds blocking. Having those extra features would be huge.

egberts1 2y ago
What? No nftables?
- cbzbc 2y ago
  They moved to nftables a release ago, fw4 uses nft under the hood, and there are hooks provided if you want to run your own rules. https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/firewall/misc/nftables https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/firewall/misc/nftables
pavon 2y ago
Yes, a built-in updater would absolutely be my vote. The OpenWRT device knows exactly which firmware build it needs, so having it download the update directly would be much faster and less error prone than having me do it. I'd still prefer to manually click to initiate the update on my schedule, but the process could be more streamlined.
- toast0 2y ago
  Attended Sysupgrade seems like the solution for this. It looks at your packages, does a cloud build for your board with your packages and you can push a button to update. Be aware if you're on snapshot, that the packaging situation is iffy right now. opkg is being replaced with apk, and there's some rough edges. I had a sysupgrade build that ended up with neither package manager, and the automatic tool doesn't currently work for doing new builds from an apk system. My wishlist item would be less churn or at least replacements should integrate as well as the old version.
  - pavon 2y ago
    Thanks, I wasn't aware of that package. I'll try it out. It should definitely be added to the default install once the devs are satisfied that it is stable.
- dehrmann 2y ago
  The main issues with the current upgrader is it doesn't install old packages and it can't migrate breaking config changes.

aceazzameen 2y ago

I remember configuring my openwrt router wasn't fun. I'd say there's room for improvement with the UX, but it's possible it's already been improved and I don't know about it. I haven't bothered updating to the latest available versions simply because I remember the initial setup being so time consuming. I'm afraid I'll lose something with an update and have to go through the trouble again. It's my own conundrum.

brokenmachine 2y ago
I did it recently and it still wasn't fun. I bought an OpenWRT-supported router with an idea to upgrade from my older dd-wrt router. I wanted to set up wireguard but saw the page about it and got scared, so for the moment I'm still using the old router. It seems built not even for normal nerds, but for network professional nerds.
- aceazzameen 2y ago
  Your last sentence seems accurate. All being said, I still love how solid the router has been over the years.

actualwitch 2y ago

I am surprised (hardware tokens based) luci 2fa is not on the list, I would think it is table stakes at this point.

evoke4908 2y ago
Why would you want 2fa on your router? You really should never expose the management interface to WAN, it should be locked down to only your local network. If you for some reason absolutely need to manage it remotely, that's why we have VPNs and SSH keys.
- actualwitch 2y ago
  So that infected tv/iot device doesn't bruteforce your router's admin account. I know you could set it up so it stops listening on 0.0.0.0 and firewall exists, but having 2fa on web ui and removing ssh should bring good enough security without much hassle.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    Why remove ssh from the LAN? Brute-forcing a cert-based login is unrealistic, and passwords should of course be disabled. You can add a passphrase to your ssh key to make it useless when stolen. What am I missing?
    - actualwitch 2y ago
      Yes, what you describe (or storing ssh key on yubikey) would be a more secure setup. I like the web ui though, so having that be available from any device including phone in a reasonably secure way would be great IMO. You can do pretty much anything via uci so when using web ui I see no reason to leave ssh running.
throw846742 2y ago
I just wanted to say - about the same time you commented on hacker news I commented on openwrt forum about this feature :) https://forum.openwrt.org/t/community-question-what-do-you-want-to-see-in-openwrt/216706/16?u=kotoko https://forum.openwrt.org/t/community-question-what-do-you-w...

Salmonfisher11 2y ago

API for central management of APs. And a server instance to do this.

zombielinux 2y ago
Absolutely. That's one thing that ubiquiti and the like do very well. Combine that with the openwrt wiki/databases and you can support a LOT of different hardware with different capabilities relatively easily.

esafak 2y ago

Do new consumer routers still "need" aftermarket firmware?

anticorporate 2y ago
That's a very subjective question. What do you want your router to do, and can it do that out of the box?
- esafak 2y ago
  Beyond features, it's also about reliability and security.
MisterTea 2y ago
You mean firmware for all the proprietary hardware they are full of like Wifi? Likely yes.
PrismCrystal 2y ago
I don't think you realize how powerful OpenWRT is. It's a whole Linux environment where you can write your own shell scripts and schedule jobs, etc. If you have created a set of your own personal customizations over the years, then it is nice that you can bring them over onto any subsequent OpenWRT-capable router you buy.
PaulKeeble 2y ago
Two reasons 1. Updates, every single router manufacturer abandons their routers within a few years, so you either keep buying new ones when the updates stop or you use open source firmware that extends that life until it's obsolete. 2. OpenWRT (and the others) expose all the features you need where manufacturers often simplify this or charge you extra for them. The hardware becomes use to utilise as you please. I wish Netgear and others directly supported open source firmware like they did in the past.
dehrmann 2y ago
How much do you trust them to get it right and do security patches? There's a chance D-Link's problems are common across vendors, and they're ones being honest about it.

egberts1 2y ago

First thing I want to see is the ability to configure beyond the basic default settings. Things that should not require configuring are Basic Common Criteria, WHONIX settings, Configurable everything. For now, I am cobbling something akin beyond Debian APT configuration: https://github.com/egberts/easy-admin https://github.com/egberts/easy-admin Warning: Bash programming.

evanjrowley 2y ago

I'd like to see more collaboration between OpenWRT and SBC makers like Banana Pi. While I love FriendlyELEC and GLi.Net for creating fantastic OpenWRT hardware, I abhor the fact that I they use OpenWRT forks. As an OpenWRT user, I really want to just upload my config files and hit the ground running. Not interested in fooling around with the user interfaces of these 3rd party spinoffs. I'd also like to see the Wiki examples supported by complete configurations. A lot of the routing examples don't show enough of what's actually required to make them work. Perhaps create complete configurations that can be applied to a virtualized OpenWRT instance?

frankharv 2y ago
BananaPi dont make anything from what I see. SinoVOIP is one manufacturer but who will make up the boards Device Tree Overlays???? Leave it to poor saps on a Wiki to do it for them... Raxda has tried to support some but they use a shitty old u-boot Linero tree like many of these joke boards. Hello. Please upsteam your work and get rid of the 2017 Uboot tree. Geez
likeabatterycar 2y ago
Is it really a burden worth complaining about to overwrite the factory fork with OpenWRT? It takes five minutes of your time. You should be doing this regardless, even if it shipped with vanilla OpenWRT, because factory firmware is often outdated out of the box.
- evanjrowley 2y ago
  This is all true, but then I have to wonder if the fork of OpenWRT they're using has drivers for hardware outside of the mainline.

zigzag312 2y ago

Streamline configuring common things. Just recenty I wanted to quickly create guest wifi on AP. After following a long guide from the official wiki, it didn't work. I probably missed something and could make it work, if I would invest some more time. But instead, I just enabled a hotspot on my phone. Both AP and router are on OpenWRT.

evoke4908 2y ago
Honestly, guest WiFi should be a one-click adventure, not a weeks-long trawl through dozens of outdated wiki pages and forum posts from years ago. Pretty much anything other than the most very basic configuration is unduly difficult. While it's certainly nice to have every conceivable setting availble to you, only a fraction of a percent of people even know what they're all for or how to apply them. What OpenWRT needs most of all is for anyone to be able to walk up and find the button that does what they want. Even for technically advanced users and career programmers, OpenWRT is obtuse and confusing. You have to spend hours researching how to do anything even slightly more complex than attaching an AP to a LAN bridge.
- 9x39 2y ago
  Unfortunately, that seems unlikely given OpenWRT (and DD-WRT before them) seem to prefer tinkering than making user-friendly products. It's one thing if it's a simple functional UI on the cheapest hardware possible, but when people are flashing hardware that cost $100, 200, 300 or more, you could have just bought into a more functional ecosystem/OS. Things like Unifi, Eero, and Mikrotik kind of obviate the need for custom firmware with bad UI. It's not 2006 anymore with Linksys WRT54GLs. Guest networks, meshing, tunnels, routing protocols, basic traffic shaping and policing -- these are all point and click or even automatic in these ecosystems to varying degrees, all for less effort than I think you'd spend on a WRT setup. Maybe their future is in low cost embedded boards and not home prosumer gear?

evoke4908 2y ago

Disappointing that "rust lol" is the top option in the poll, and none of the other options are about usability or utility. No one gives a single shit what language the thing is written in. What users care about is how monstrously complex and difficult it is to use OpenWRT. Anything more complex than changing SSID and password requires trawling through two different outdated wikis and years-old forum posts. That's if your search engine can even find something other than thousands of people asking the same question over the years. OpenWRT needs to be usable and approachable. Any random person off the street should be able to walk up and configure their network. Even for highly technical users it's a struggle to do anything. It does not matter one single bit whether there's rust in the codebase if it's never run because no one can figure out how to use it. Rust is not a feature. It's an implementation detail that absolutely no one cares about and does not affect the user in any way. I'm really sick of this shit.

actualwitch 2y ago
I give a shit what language the thing is written in. Right now it's c for uhttpd + lua for luci. I would prefer to cut as much of both as possible from firmware of devices on my network. Not only that, trying to write decent modern UI on top of this stack is not worth the hassle and it dramatically reduces number of people who can volunteer such work.
steveklabnik 2y ago
You can't extrapolate with polls with so many votes. I'm here an hour after you and Rust is at 4%. There's only been 66 votes so far, I bet you just ran into it very early.
likeabatterycar 2y ago
Very true. I recently wasted days trying to setup IPSec on OpenWRT with no success. IPSec support is broken into dozens of packages without proper dependency resolution. No GUI support. Sparse documentation, and what little documentation is out there is outdated and mostly consists of sample configs rather than true documentation. You see, OpenWRT likes to break configs from version to version and the docs are never updated. You can't follow documentation from upstream because OpenWRT auto-generates the package's config files from its own configs. Which are sparsely documented. "Helpful" forum posts mostly suggested to "use Wireguard" with a notion that IPSec is an archaic protocol that is not worth anyone's time to support, and the user is dumber for trying to use it. Hardly.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

Last time I tried it (~5 years ago) I think that I had trouble wrangling all the antennas to get them to cooperate on 5ghz. Maybe I'm wrong- it was awhile ago. wrt3200acm

lnauta 2y ago

About a month ago I would've said the automatic upgrades. But a few weeks ago I tried to upgrade, my custom setup couldnt be resolved by the image builder (probably old software installed). I decided to backup, export the uci commands too and do a clean install. Setting up was super easy from the uci commands and it turns out the rest of my setup was not essential. Then I had to join a vlan for my new ISP. That was a tough one! Evenings of reading threads and going through documentation and there was no clear answer. In the end I asked an LLM and the instructions were so easy, it made me wonder how I missed it. So I would join some other calls in here for common setups.

variadix 2y ago

Make it less confusing to setup VLANs

pcl 2y ago

1. Simple Multi-WAN support in the UI. Take a look at the Fresh Tomato UI for a good example of how to do this. 2. Easy tailscale support. If my router goes wonky, I really want to be able to get to it, and there’s no guarantee that I can connect directly through my upstreams.

amluto 2y ago

Multi-AP. I don’t care about “mesh”, aka wireless uplink, personally, but I do care about the ability to do a competent multiple-AP deployment. Beyond just synchronizing configuration, I consider 802.11k, v and r to be table stakes. And I don’t mean “we use hostapd and you can, in theory, turn it on”. I mean actually deploying multiple instances, using an actual supported, documented and easy configuration, and ending up with a correctly configured network or three that actually work across APs near-optimally. And I should be able to configure and manage this all from one place. Heck, this should be the default configuration. The fact that OpenWRT can’t do this is why I don’t use it any more. Otherwise I rather like OpenWRT. There’s an open-source implementation of a WiFi alliance spec for Multi-AP called prpl that’s even based on OpenWRT. I’m sure it’s a mess and supports all manner of undesirable crap, but the good parts could be a good place to start.

MezzoDelCammin 2y ago
That and so much that! Much as I like OpenWRT, it's still quite a pain to cover anything like an older (thick walled) house with more than one floor. I'm about to redo one of those networks as my Christmas holidays project and I dread the day I need to reconfigure the APs.
FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago
Something like Aruba Instant On would be awesome...
- cmxch 2y ago
  I’d be fine with just plain Instant where it can group up APs from one master. Instant On would just be icing on the cake.
gforce_de 2y ago
Of course this possible and working: https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/roaming https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/roaming Follow the usteer path.

pseudosavant 2y ago

The core foundation of OpenWRT is very solid. It needs items that make using and maintaining OpenWRT devices easier. A way to have centralized management of multiple devices (why do I have to manually update my SSID on every AP?). Make it easy to update (like Attended Sysupgrade). Make common 'extras' easy: setup a Wireguard VPN server, connect your network/wifi to a WG VPN, use DNS over HTTPS.

shmerl 2y ago

Easy way to set it up to run as a wifi access point by default, not as a router.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

I want to see de-coupled DNS and DHCP by default so I do not have to manually replace dnsmasq with odhcp and nsd.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
https://openwrt.org/docs/techref/odhcpd https://openwrt.org/docs/techref/odhcpd
- josephcsible 2y ago
  Out of the box, isn't odhcpd just for IPv6 DHCP, with dnsmasq for DNS and IPv4 DHCP?
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
    "odhcpd-ipv6only" package is pre-installed along with "dnsmasq" I routinely uninstall this combo and replace with "ohdcpd" I prefer authoritative DNS operated by me over recursive resolvers operated by third parties so I prefer something like nsd (compiled with --enable-root-server) as opposed to dnsmasq Personally, I have no need for IPv6 on the LAN but there is no "odhcpd-ipv4only" package

bobthebutcher 2y ago

Something vaguely equivalent to a liveCD boot mode? Every once in a few years I seem to take a leap with some device to see if I can convert it to OpenWRT or update it once I've done so but I'm always a bit stressed by uncertainty.

CursedSilicon 2y ago

I am an absolute niche but I'd love to see better x86 (well, x64) support OpenWRT absolutely blows PFsense/OPNsense out the water in my experience. I don't need a bajillion different configuration options, I just want a tiny PC that can route packets effectively and maybe do a bit of port forwarding. But won't keel over and die when I download lots of "Linux ISO's" on my fiber internet connection I dropped PFsense after the Wireguard debacle where they tried to force broken code into the FreeBSD kernel [1] OPNsense meanwhile ate its own EFI boot partition after a system upgrade and rendered itself unbootable. Not great! OpenWRT on x64 feels more like a "test system" than something to run in production. Being able to upgrade-in-place until recently was "just dd the disk image to your target boot drive!" instead of having some way to properly install or upgrade the system Despite this it also still limits itself to about 100MB for the rootfs partition. The SSD I've installed is some junk 60GB no-name brand, so I guess I'm safe as long as it can do wear-levelling. But when OpenWRT themselves have devices with gigabytes of eMMC flash supported it feels a bit restrictive for a default. Due to being optimized for routers with tiny flash and memory everything is broken up into as many tiny pieces as possible as well. Want to run hostapd? There's about 4 different options for which hostapd you want. Want a web UI? Well install LuCI via opkg/apk. Nothing comes "batteries included" so much as it comes "individual lego pieces" I love OpenWRT. It's built like an absolute tank and yet is simple enough to make even the most in-depth changes absolutely easy. If they were willing to push upward into more standard x86 kit they'd give PFsense and its contemporaries a serious challenge. SmoothWall, IPCop and all the others have long since died out for "free Linux router/firewall appliance" [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/buffer-overruns-license-violations-and-bad-code-freebsd-13s-close-call/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/buffer-overruns-lice...

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
"I am an absolute niche bu I'd love to see better x86 (well, x64) support" I'll second that, maybe not for the same reasons. I have numerous static binaries built for x86-64 that I would like to be able to use on new OpwenWRT installs. Because the OpenWRT x86-64 support is lacking I only use it on MIPS and cross-compile or, if it is a tiny program, compile natively on the router (slow). And I stick to NetBSD for x86 routers.

rrr_oh_man 2y ago

As a user, I would pay serious money for a router where I can freely use the eSIM of my choice.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]