This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
GTFO, clicking on "buy now" two times results in some shop which has "aliexpress" as the official partner.
This can't be a product from the sources mentioned, can it?
There are use cases for this router, but please don't get the plastic clone sold by the same Chinese company that assembles the real thing. (The plastic clone costs a third, but doesn't have detachable antennas and doesn't accept mainstream OpenWRT because it uses an almost unknown CPU.)
Myself, when I need a high capability router (for me "capability" typically means "range") I turn towards a Raspberry Pi and Alfa AWUS1900 wireless card. Yes, it lacks in throughput (USB is a severe bottleneck)... but with a bit of tweaking, you can talk out to 2 kilometers if terrain allows. :)
I'm not sold.
Only two Ethernet ports. No SFP. Only available on AliExpress. Dishonestly marketed as the "first router designed specifically for OpenWRT".
Perhaps they are the first to make a router for OpenWRT the FOSS project, but certainly not the first to make one specifically for compatibility with the OpenWRT the Linux-based OS.
CZ.NIC (Czech Republic) makes several fully open-source routers under the "Turris" brand that run their own open-source variant of OpenWRT called "Turris OS". It's basically just an Open-WRT based distro with a custom frontend + root ssh and LuCI, and you can go vanilla if you want to.
GL.iNet (China) makes dozens of routers all designed for OpenWRT. They come standard with a custom install that includes a custom frontend and a handful of integrations, but you've gotta root ssh and LuCI, and you can go vanilla.
There are probably more out there. I think GlobalScale makes a few also, once on Kickstarter.
This is link to CZ.NIC's Turris offerings.
They ship to "many countries" besides Czech republic, according to their page.
The router itself is quite expensive at around 400 euros for the wifi model.
In case it is not obvious, they are primarily Czech domain registrar.
The price is right for sure, but it's still sad they didn't shoot for wifi 7. It was a pretty big leap in latency reduction.
I need this router.
I'm glad it's open hardware as much as open software, but I think I'll wait to see what the OpenWrt Two looks like.
I'm fine with the looks and hardware, except I'm not upgrading again for a wifi 6 router. I'll wait till they make a 7. 7 has a couple pretty big improvements over 6.
I need this but 4G version..
GL.inet has some LTE routers with OpenWRT on them. I haven't tried the LTE version, and the one (Shadow) I have has to be rebooted once a week, but that's a really cheap one I was trying.
So, how is this any better than the Router Mini PCs you can find in Aliexpress (random example)?
Most of those run OpenWrt or PfSense. Assuming the hardware is well-supported by the open source software it runs, there's a argument to be made that there's no difference. There's always the risk of them using some weird chipset that won't be supported in a year's time. The only difference is that the OpenWrt One is specifically designed for OpenWrt with well-supported hardware.
WiFi
The very example I provided comes with an mPCI-e slot to install a WiFi card of your choosing.
Also they have SIM card slots so you can install a data SIM card and set-up a fallback configuration that switches to it if your landline internet connection goes down.
Of course. But this one comes with WiFi onboard and a case with antennas if you go for the clothed option.
Yeah, the case with antennas is a good point - when I decided to concentrate various things in a Mini-PC in my living room (TV-Box, Router and so on) I actually looked into these router Mini-PCs as an option and the biggest problem was the lack of a proper antenna, so I ended up going with a generic Mini-PC and leaving out the router functionality which remains done by my old router (which is quite decent, just a bit outdated).
Mind you, this one also wouldn't work for me because I'm using 4 Ethernet ports (1 for the external connection and 3 internally) whilst this one only has 2 (a weird choice for a router).
IMHO, this isn't really better than just getting an SBC with 2 Ethernet ports and WiFi and put it in a box with an antenna), a setup which suffers from exactly the same problem as this one: not enough Ethernet ports.
I still don't understand why this isn't a 2.5G WAN and 2.5G LAN. Is it assuming that people are going to be using it as a router on a stick with a 1G WAN?
Nerd here. You confuse me:
WAN is some up-/downstream port connecting intranets remotely in my novice book. The measurement G doesn't refer to some advertisement-thingy in terms of wireless speed (but Gigabyte) - Maybe it's some form of Generation; But then I lack everything including my false base knowledge. Additionally I have never encountered "2.5G LAN" ever before: Would you be able to shed light on my shortcomings? 2.5 x 8 is 20 Gbit. I didn't read about that size yet.
WAN would be the Internet uplink port. A 2.5G WAN port is a 2.5 gigabit Ethernet port. 2.5 gigabit and o a lesser extent 5 gigabit Ethernet are a standard that's becoming rapidly available on a lot of hardware. OP is stating that for a device shipping near the end of 2024, a new router that is shipping with only 1 GbE instead of 2.5 GbE is a problem.
You want your $90 wi-fi router to do what now?
most likely because this device is mainly for wifi use, and/or limitation of the SoC.
Just pulled the trigger, only had European plugs in stock. I've got adapters so np. I'm getting it to replace my Raspberry Pi router that I've been using for a few years.
*Edit, I should say I'm a huge fan openWRT despite the fact that 15 years ago I managed to brick my linksys router so bad it actually caused sparks to shoot out the ethernet jacks. I flashed the wrong model firmware.
That's amazing, for software to be able to cause that!
And also highly unlikely in the way described lol
Power over Ethernet is a helluva drug
What's the point of having 1G on WAN and 2.5G on LAN? Traffic won't hit the LAN port until it's routed to the Internet, yet the WAN port is the bottleneck.
Edit: Seems like I switch up the port speed but my point still holds as the bittleneck still exist.
The LAN and WAN ports aren't labelled as such on the device and can be configured to do anything. The 2.5Gb port can also be used to take in PoE so for a lot of people - myself included - this will be the only port that's actually used, or at least the port that will be used the heaviest. The reason, I think, that it's configured as WAN by default is so that the LAN port can be used to plug a laptop in directly without disconnecting the whole network.
It doesn't matter. Port configuration can switch around and the bottleneck is still there. Traffic with in the broadcast domain (i.e. subnet) will handled by the switch alone.
There is WiFi onboard so it can have some actual benefits, depending on design and how user access resources, but how likely you're going to saturate that 1/2.5G link? Not even you stream some 4K movies from Plex to iPhone will does that.
This person knows openwrt haha.
Tranfering between devices on the LAN.
Edit: Wait, no, it's the other way around. 2.5 on WAN, and just a single 1GB LAN port. That absolutely doesn't make sense.
This is a common setup for WiFi routers, where the idea is that most traffic will be on WiFi.
