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

[Jonathan Wilkes]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Sean Alexandre <sean864 at pobox.com>
> To: Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Dan Ballance <tzewang.dorje at gmail.com>; freedombox list <freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 7:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] FreedomBox as a home router to replace Cisco/Linksys
> 
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
> Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>>  It could if the ISP contract allows the user to hook up their own
>>  router and it isn't a double-NAT setup.
>> 
>>  I know some ISPs like to charge for hooking up more than one machine,
>>  meaning the user basically pays for them to bring a wireless router
>>  and plug it in to their dsl modem or whatever.  In my own limited
>>  experience the ISPs I've used haven't done any checking that would
>>  lock you in to only using the router they provide, but I guess some
>>  of them probably make you register a MAC address with them to get
>>  service.  I know a lot of universities do that.
>> 
>>  I think from the user perspective, plugging in a FB _behind_ what
>>  their ISP already has installed is way easier to set up and
>>  immediately start using, but less powerful (I'm thinking of the setup
>>  discussed recently where it's basically piggybacking over Tor make
>>  connections).  Of course replacing one's router with a FB-- if there
>>  isn't a double-NAT-- opens up many more possibilities for what you
>>  can do with it.
>> 
>>  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's going to be running Debian, right?
>> 
>>  -Jonathan
> 
> I see. Interesting. I have Time Warner and have to use the device they
> provide. By default it's a wireless router with NAT. It can be
> configured for just pass-through, though, which is what I've done --
> "bridging mode".

Is it a device that doubles as a dsl modem and wireless router?  (I forgot
about those devices.)

How hard was putting it in "bridging mode"?  Does Time Warner give you the
l/p for the device?  And what exactly does "bridging mode" do?

> 
> 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?

That is a very good question, and I am interesting in knowing the answer, too.

> 
> For those in this situation, seems this would be something for an added
> service later, to tunnel through and avoid spying.
> 
> Or, ideally, find another ISP.

That is still very difficult in a lot of places.