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

[Nick M. Daly]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:13:38 -0400, Sean Alexandre <sean864 at pobox.com> wrote:
> > 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 would be interesting to know what percentage of potential FreedomBox
> users are required by their ISP to use an ISP provided device for NAT.
> Anybody have any numbers or guesstimates for this? Or, any ideas on how
> to find this out?

It's on a provider-by-provider basis.  Figure out how many providers
there are and what their policies are (dslreports.com is a good start),
and you've got your answer.  Might be worthwhile to track this on the
wiki.  My ISP, who shall remain nameless, runs the single most hostile
network I've ever been on.  They register their router's MAC for you and
charge you $10/mo for the privilege of depriving you of the root
password on a device that doesn't actually forward any ports properly.
The only reason I'm still with them is the challenge: if we can make the
FBX work here, it'll work just about anywhere.

Nick
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20120702/cb74de52/attachment.pgp>