I ordered a RB and I plan to install openWRT for a research project.

I will use a custom implementation of the transport layer, and I'm afraid that RouterOS is not open enough to let me play with its sourcecode.

Anyhow I'm worried about losing some key functionality while switching OS, thus handicapping my HW.


What does routeros offer over OpenWRT, or linux in general, apart from a very beautiful interface?

Is there any key HW/SW feature which I would lose switching to OWRT?

What I miss most from any other system is PCQ.
But RouterOS has also some nice wireless features / extensions / protocols that standard 802.11 (thus OpenWRT) does not offer.

What I miss most from any other system is PCQ.

Nice, I just read about it.

But RouterOS has also some nice wireless features / extensions / protocols that standard 802.11 (thus OpenWRT) does not offer.

Do you care to elaborate some more on this?

I couldn't find exactly anywhere in the documentation a page specifying differences between ROS and Linux. Maybe I missed it, but if there isn't any, I think it would be good for marketing to better specify the strength point of this beautiful platform.

Which RouterBOARD did you buy? Have you considered installing OpenWRT within MetaROUTER? Then you can have the best of both worlds: RouterOS running "bare metal", and OpenWRT for whatever custom code you need to run. You can redirect network traffic to the OpenWRT guest either by bridging or routing.

-- Nathan

Which RouterBOARD did you buy?

RB751U-2HnD

I know it's not listed on OpenWRT supported hardware, but I want to try it and see if I can make a port

Have you considered installing OpenWRT within MetaROUTER?

Yes, I will try this step too, but I would need to encapsulate my transport layer within TCP or UDP, thus deleting the benefit of my work.

Might be useful for debugging, but I don't think it will be a viable approach in a production environment.

I will test this out to find out more.

Then you can have the best of both worlds: RouterOS running "bare metal", and OpenWRT for whatever custom code you need to run.

But wouldn't this affect CPU performance?

...I would need to encapsulate my transport layer within TCP or UDP, thus deleting the benefit of my work.

No you wouldn't. That's what I was saying: you can either bridge between one or more ethernet ports on the router to the OpenWRT guest, or you can even assign direct control over one or more of the ethernet ports to OpenWRT within MetaROUTER. About the only thing you can't do is present the wireless interface as a wireless interface to OpenWRT in MetaROUTER...it will just look and act like another ethernet port.

So if by "transport layer" you mean anything above layer 2, you can absolutely do this with MetaROUTER. If you mean layer 2 or below (you want to implement a different MAC layer for the wireless interface, say), then...yeah, you're right.

Which RouterBOARD did you buy?

RB751U-2HnD

That's a problem. RB751U only has 32MB of RAM, which really isn't enough realistically to run any MetaROUTER with.

-- Nathan

if you are running bare OpenWRT than memory requirements are not that huge. For RotuerOS guest it is required to have more than 16MB of RAM (say 24 at least).

if you are running bare OpenWRT than memory requirements are not that huge.

True, but if you want to do anything useful with it after it's booted up, it's best to have, say, more than 8MB. This is kind of like saying Windows Vista runs in 1GB of RAM. Technically true, but...

-- Nathan

So if by "transport layer" you mean anything above layer 2, you can absolutely do this with MetaROUTER. If you mean layer 2 or below (you want to implement a different MAC layer for the wireless interface, say), then...yeah, you're right.

I think I will find out as soon as the board arrive

That's a problem. RB751U only has 32MB of RAM, which really isn't enough realistically to run any MetaROUTER with.

-- Nathan

if you are running bare OpenWRT than memory requirements are not that huge.

True, but if you want to do anything useful with it after it's booted up, it's best to have, say, more than 8MB. This is kind of like saying Windows Vista runs in 1GB of RAM. Technically true, but...

-- Nathan

that's not a problem, I can very well buy another RB to play with MR.

Mesh networks require a lot of devices