[Freedombox-discuss] Sunday HackFest

[Matt Willsher]

On 21 February 2011 11:29, Bob Mottram <fuzzgun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/2/21 Bjarni Rúnar Einarsson <bre at pagekite.net>:
>> Hmm, as one who has vocally opposed the idea that FreedomBoxes would be
>> REQUIRED to be routers, I think that some of the features will best be
>> achieved when FreedomBoxes are ABLE to be routers.
>
> From a consumer point of view having the FB as a router may introduce
> additional problems and possible ISP support issues for non tech-savvy
> users.  It's probably best to assume that the FB is not a router by
> default, but can also be configured as one if needed.  This causes the
> least network disruption and maximizes the possibility of FBs becoming
> more widely adopted amongst those users who are most likely to benefit
> from what they have to offer.

There is the other option of bridging but if the user has a something
the other side of the bridge (most likely their wireless access point
in the router) this topology is pretty worthless. The FB could be a
router on a stick perhaps? It becomes the network's default route and
then hands off to the actually gateway. Then you're looking at the FB
being the networks DHCP, DNS server or at the very least the current
DHCP being modified to set the FB as the default router for its
clients. The FB could not be used for border protection but it would
allow extended functionality and increased transparency.