On Sat, 28 May 2016, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
On 05/27/2016 12:43 PM, David Lang wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016, Delbar Jos wrote:
We are conscious of the fact that together with the proposals made by
Felix, Luka and Wojtek we are now looking at many "competing"
proposals. As a next step, we recommend to organize a workshop, at a
practical location and time, where we put everything on the table and
define the most appropriate path forward to the benefit of OpenWrt as
a whole.
nothing wrong with supporting many different remote management daemons.
TR-069 is a complicated remote management system and in order to make
this initiative a success, we must ensure that the complexity is
handled in an elegant way and with respect for OpenWrt's core
architecture. More than on the protocol itself, we believe that we
should focus on the architectural enhancements required to support
remote management in general.
What is it that you think is needed to "support remote management in
general"?
It's worth pointing out that many people are remotely managing OpenWRT
devices, Ansible/Salt/Puppet/Chef/etc are all common tools for the job.
now, those are all tools aimed at managing Linux Servers, not networking
gear, but OpenWRT is a server.
So I'd suggest starting off by creating a daemon that talks <your
protocol> and just stores the stuff it's sent in some simple files so
that it can return the info when queried.
Once you have something that talks the network protocol correctly,
modifying it to change the real files, make uci calls, etc for different
distros is much easier (just write your daemon with the expectation that
the input and output details are going to change, so don't get fancy
with them).
David Lang
The TR-069 family is currently wildly used by ISPs controlling the (DSL)
CPE devices of their customers. There are probably more than 100 million
device controlled by standards from the TR-069 family out there. When
you get a DSL router from your ISP or buy one in the retail store it is
very likely it supports the standards from the TR-069 family, as a
vendor in this area you basically need support for this to sell your
devices.
I wasn't questioning why it's useful to support TR-069. The only part I was
questioning was the statement that OpenWRT needed work to make it support remote
management.
There are already many tools to remotely manage/monitor OpenWRT
But that's why I'm saying that it seems like most of the work is in the protocol
interface. If there is already a daemon that does the network protocol properly,
that should make things very easy. If such a daemon needs to be written, that
would be the place I would suggest that they focus. There are a lot of people
who can do the plumbing work to make the daemon do the right thing on the
system, who are not in a position to work on the network protocol side and make
sure that it works properly with the management software.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
