Topic 'Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL' in forum 'TekSavvy' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22597314 en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:46:01 EDT Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:46:01 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22644790
As far as we know, TekSavvy is the single largest provider of MLPPP services in the entire world. They hit resource limits on Juniper's hardware that nobody else had ever hit. MLPPP was designed for bonding dialup and ISDN lines, and it seems that nobody ever really bothered to try bonding DSL lines with PPPoE using it, at least not in large numbers (of users).

So it's not surprising that a European developer shows little interest in it; nobody outside of Canada really uses it, and even within Canada, I suspect that TekSavvy has far more MLPPP users than anybody else offering it (which at the moment seems to be Velcom and some others that are working on it that I'm not sure if I can mention).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22644790 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:16:07 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22644444 »www.ncix.com/products/index.php?···oid=1078]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22644444 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:11:25 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22623857
There's an ongoing thread about DD-WRT and MLPPP on the DD-WRT forums, nobody seemed to care.

I so wished they did, so I can actually move off the WR850G I have when it dies.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22623857 Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:09:32 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22612394 said by Kareeser:

The WRT160NL has the same processor as the WRT54GL? I find that hard to believe.
It doesn't. The 160 has a 400MHz CPU while the 54 has a 200-240MHz CPU depending on model, 216MHz for the WRT54GSv2 I benchmarked. That is why I doubled my 54's figure (~35Mbps) for the 160 and said that the non-ideal real-world should more than offset any IPC improvements the new CPU may have.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22612394 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:42:44 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22612200 quote:
So, even if the WRT160's CPU has better IPC, it will still end up CPU-capped at less than 80Mbps in real-world scenarios with multiple sources, multiple destinations, multiple streams and out-of-sequence packets.


The WRT160NL has the same processor as the WRT54GL? I find that hard to believe.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22612200 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:01:55 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22607113 said by RARPSL:

You have to remember that once the packet leaves the modem port, it travels over an Ethernet wire with a 42 byte-per-packet overhead. Thus the 1500 Byte TCP/IP Packet becomes a 1542 Byte Ethernet packet thus dropping back to 97.25 Mbs IF you are using 100Base-T.When was the last time you have ever seen someone speedtest at the advertised speeds? Cable ISPs count at least part of their framing overhead in advertised speeds too and people end up getting around 90% of advertised speeds.
said by RARPSL:

At Gigabit Speeds there is NO Ethernet overhead since the Ethernet connection can handle whatever speed the Modem and Computer is using. The issue of the lack of 100Mbs speeds at the Server Side is a separate issue.
Even if the WRT160 had GbE WAN, GbE LAN, you had 200Mbps internet service and had sources able to push 200Mbps to you, my WRT54GS' 216MHz CPU croaks around 35Mbps (100% CPU load) with the simplest possible scenario: point-to-point transfer, one single in-sequence data stream. So, even if the WRT160's CPU has better IPC, it will still end up CPU-capped at less than 80Mbps in real-world scenarios with multiple sources, multiple destinations, multiple streams and out-of-sequence packets.

The WRT160 simply does not look like it has the muscle to handle 100Mbps routing under real-world conditions.

said by RARPSL:

I can get a Cisco/Linksys Wired Gigabit RVS4000Router for $100 or a 801.11N Gigabit WRVS4400N for $170 so they are available now for under your $300 figure.
Yes, they are cheaper... but from what little information is available about the hardware, it seems the WRVS4400N uses semi-custom ASICs to make the overall design tamper-resistant and its hardware-accelerated "content inspection engine" will bottleneck routing throughput to 180Mbps if all NAT traffic has to go through it even if the rest of the hardware can actually go this fast.

$100 for the WRT160 gives you ~80Mbps of routing capacity (most likely less under real-world conditions)
$170 for the WRVS4400N gives you ~180Mbps of hardware-accelerated routing/VPN capacity with a bucketload of security features
$300 for a wireless switch capable of full-GbE switching and routing does not seem too far-fetched]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22607113 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:34:44 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22606840 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22606840 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:02:50 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22606836 said by pandora:

If Linksys wants to release an open source enthusiast router they should provide a method for flashing to ram, and for booting off a hard drive either attached to a USB or ESATA port IMO.
Linksys DID NOT want to open-source their firmware, they had to be BROUGHT TO COURT before they released the firmware for the WRT54G routers. There is no reason for Linksys to make using their products in ways they never meant them to be used any easier than it already is.

Linksys went to court to keep their Linux-derived firmware behind locked doors, they failed. Now that the firmware is out of the door, they are simply releasing a slightly updated version of it to coast on the WRT54GS' unexpected success.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22606836 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:00:42 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22606502 said by InvalidError:

said by RARPSL:

In the NYC Metro Area Cablevision offers 101Mbs speeds so a Gigabit Router is needed if you do not want to get Router Throttled back to the speeds that a 100Base-T port can deliver (assuming that the router's CPU chip can keep up with the Modem).
Besides the fact that very few internet servers would be able to push 100Mbps, DOCSIS still does not deliver 100% throughput and even 98% of 101Mbps falls within what is achievable on 100Mbps Ethernet... though just barely.
You have to remember that once the packet leaves the modem port, it travels over an Ethernet wire with a 42 byte-per-packet overhead. Thus the 1500 Byte TCP/IP Packet becomes a 1542 Byte Ethernet packet thus dropping back to 97.25 Mbs IF you are using 100Base-T. At Gigabit Speeds there is NO Ethernet overhead since the Ethernet connection can handle whatever speed the Modem and Computer is using. The issue of the lack of 100Mbs speeds at the Server Side is a separate issue.

said by InvalidError:

said by RARPSL:

Having Gigabit Ports Future Proof for when the speeds require it as well as supporting faster LAN Speeds (CPU-to-CPU transfers). BTW: I think Japan has speeds in the 100+Mbs range right now so your "Most Places Worldwide" does not apply there (and the US has very low average max rates for a number of reasons).
Cheap consumer-grade routers are not meant to be future-proof, they are meant to address the greatest common denominator of their target market at the lowest cost possible. A broadband router with full GbE routing capability would require more than 10X the CPU power on top of the GbE switching components, easily doubling the BoM for features only a small percentage of people out there would actually need.

Most people would prefer paying $100 for a new router today that will last them until ~100Mbs no longer cuts it and buy a new 1000Mbps router for $100 at that point than pay $300 for a GbE broadband router today that may fail out-of-warranty before such speeds ever become available.

Although some areas are blessed with exceptional broadband speeds, very few places have any hope of seeing anything remotely close to 100Mbps any time soon. As for Japan and other places with bleeding-edge internet speeds, most of these networks are based on shared fiber access and these amazing speeds are only maximum attainable BURST speeds, another form of our beloved "UP TO". During high-usage times, actual speeds may drop under 10Mbps due to network congestion.
I can get a Cisco/Linksys Wired Gigabit RVS4000Router for $100 or a 801.11N Gigabit WRVS4400N for $170 so they are available now for under your $300 figure.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22606502 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:12:36 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22606059 said by planiwa:

Does the WRT160NL even have shell access?
If it's going to replace the WRT54GL, it's going to not only need to be open source, but easy to flash with modified Linux.

My current favorite Linksys router is the WRTSL54GS, which unfortunately isn't made anymore. :(
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22606059 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:48:46 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22606020 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22606020 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:42:17 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22605626
There is a need for low power devices which provide a multitude of home and network automation services. The mod community has demonstrated that the little Linksys routers can do a lot more than initially intended. It would be nice to see Linksys understand and process this by releasing a great slim Linux platform for continued development IMO.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22605626 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:29:14 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22605420 said by pandora:

If Linksys does nothing else, a flash to ram option, which would allow writing and booting from ram for developers could really help make its new routers a success.Since installing homebrew firmware on your router voids your warranty, there is no reason for Linksys/Cisco to implement dual-boot flash or other such protections for homebrew firmware development.

That said, programmers do not require Cisco's help on this one, they can take the matter in their own hands. One common practice for field-programmable and in-system-programmable devices is to split the firmware space into a bootloader (permanent) and application (update-prone) parts where the bootloader contains the general initialization sequence and recovery tools which must be bug-free and extremely unlikely to change while the application represents pretty much everything else.

The existence of "debrick" procedures for the WRT54 routers tells me the OEM firmware already contains some sort of bootloader to download and flash the firmware from a tftp session. Accessing and using the bootloader may not be convenient but it works for those who know about it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22605420 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:46:57 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22605382 flash to ram option

then it is not FLASHing. ;P I wrote mine in less than a day and I port it to a few microntrollers that I work on.

A JTAG cable could rescue the router by reprogramming the FLASH. If you are seriously developing code, you'll need that. 15 minutes of soldering job if you don't already have one.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22605382 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:37:57 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604718 said by RARPSL:

In the NYC Metro Area Cablevision offers 101Mbs speeds so a Gigabit Router is needed if you do not want to get Router Throttled back to the speeds that a 100Base-T port can deliver (assuming that the router's CPU chip can keep up with the Modem).Besides the fact that very few internet servers would be able to push 100Mbps, DOCSIS still does not deliver 100% throughput and even 98% of 101Mbps falls within what is achievable on 100Mbps Ethernet... though just barely.

said by RARPSL See ProfileHaving Gigabit Ports Future Proof for when the speeds require it as well as supporting faster LAN Speeds (CPU-to-CPU transfers). BTW: I think Japan has speeds in the 100+Mbs range right now so your "Most Places Worldwide" does not apply there (and the US has very low average max rates for a number of reasons).[/BQUOTE :

Cheap consumer-grade routers are not meant to be future-proof, they are meant to address the greatest common denominator of their target market at the lowest cost possible. A broadband router with full GbE routing capability would require more than 10X the CPU power on top of the GbE switching components, easily doubling the BoM for features only a small percentage of people out there would actually need.

Most people would prefer paying $100 for a new router today that will last them until ~100Mbs no longer cuts it and buy a new 1000Mbps router for $100 at that point than pay $300 for a GbE broadband router today that may fail out-of-warranty before such speeds ever become available.

Although some areas are blessed with exceptional broadband speeds, very few places have any hope of seeing anything remotely close to 100Mbps any time soon. As for Japan and other places with bleeding-edge internet speeds, most of these networks are based on shared fiber access and these amazing speeds are only maximum attainable BURST speeds, another form of our beloved "UP TO". During high-usage times, actual speeds may drop under 10Mbps due to network congestion.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604718 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:30:47 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604471
Development is slowed as there is a risk of creating a brick. Flash to ram could allow greater experimentation. I'm a bit surprised no mod exists from any 3rd party allowing flash to ram.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604471 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:47:57 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604458 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604458 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:44:37 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604373 said by 51019512:

I think we just need to get the dd-wrt creators to put MLPPP into it.

There are threads for the new Tomato routers that go into into last year and people even offer money and nothing.

There is a guy who blew over $100 and sent the dev of Tomato and router and got nothing in return.

And DD-wrt supports soo many more routers.
ddwrt is bloated full of useless features...I prefer tomato, better yet Victek's build of tomato firmware :)

Still have my WRT54G v2 running, its been like 6-7 years now.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604373 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:31:20 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604338 said by RARPSL:

[I was not trying to play "Can You Top This" or "Mine is Bigger/Faster than Yours" but only pointing out that there are some locations that ALREADY need Gigabit Ports on their routers. While I am a Cablevision Customer and could have that 101Mbs Speed, for a number of reasons I have not yet ordered it (maybe later in the year or early 2010).
Yeah, I know you weren't, I was just laughing at our situation here, where wholesale DSL, at least in the Bell Canada regions is capped at 5mbps (4.3mbps after overheads) and is unlikely to get any faster in the near future as the telco is contesting the regulator's ruling to match speeds they offer to their own retail customers...

Cable internet is in a bit better shape with speeds of 10-15mbps in most regions but they are usually capped between 60-100GB/month and are usually throttled for P2P as well.
--
GOLF LEAFS GOLF!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604338 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:25:41 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604284
There are threads for the new Tomato routers that go into into last year and people even offer money and nothing.

There is a guy who blew over $100 and sent the dev of Tomato and router and got nothing in return.

And DD-wrt supports soo many more routers.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604284 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:17:23 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604270 said by HiVolt:

said by RARPSL:

In the NYC Metro Area Cablevision offers 101Mbs speeds
LOL, that doesn't really bother us here in Canuckistan, as our internet speeds are behind some 3rd world countries, hehe...
I was not trying to play "Can You Top This" or "Mine is Bigger/Faster than Yours" but only pointing out that there are some locations that ALREADY need Gigabit Ports on their routers. While I am a Cablevision Customer and could have that 101Mbs Speed, for a number of reasons I have not yet ordered it (maybe later in the year or early 2010).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604270 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:15:35 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604213 IMO an enthusiast router, would support a lot of RAM, flash, gigabit, at least 2 USB ports and have one or two ESATA ports.

»www.marvell.com/products/embedde···uter.jsp

There is always the Marvell reference design. Right now they are selling the developer's kit for $99 U.S. They limited the external interfaces, but the chip has x1 PCIe, 2 SATA and 2 gigabit Ethernet ports. Marvell is a chip vendors, so you really have to wait for 3rd parties to make this a real product in any real volume.

>Featuring a 1.2GHz Marvell Sheeva™ CPU with 512MB
of flash memory and 512MB of DDR2 memory. Network connectivity is via Gigabit Ethernet; peripheral devices can be connected using USB2.0. Software for the SheevaPlug includes multiple Linux distributions and follows the open-source model, making the SheevaPlug an ideal platform on which to develop or port any application.

»www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News···support/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604213 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:09:47 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604155 said by RARPSL:

In the NYC Metro Area Cablevision offers 101Mbs speedsLOL, that doesn't really bother us here in Canuckistan, as our internet speeds are behind some 3rd world countries, hehe...
--
GOLF LEAFS GOLF!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604155 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:01:00 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604051 said by pandora:

The current Linksys routers lack sufficient flash and RAM to make this happen. Generally the Linux OS has to be compressed into flash (as there isn't enough flash) then pushed out into RAM (which makes the scarce RAM even more so).The WRT160 hardware is sufficient to fulfill its intended primary purpose. That hackers and enthusiasts will try to turn it into something else beyond the OEM's intent is irrelevant to the OEM... this is how the modder-hacker-enthusiast community has always been.

said by pandora:

There is a lot of interesting stuff an enthusiast router could do for us.
Linksys/Cisco did not design the WRT54G routers to be 'enthusiast' devices, they were designed to be cheap consumer-grade broadband routers. "Enthusiasts" turned them into enthusiast devices after the firmware got opened up.

If you buy a device advertised for a certain purpose, buy it and turn it into something else, you cannot really complain to the OEM about it.

Yes, tinkerers and hardware junkies want devices with 10x more processing power, memory, IO options, etc. than typical consumers will ever need but this is not an economically viable engineering choice on low-cost, low-margins mass-market devices like the WRT54 and WRT160 routers. Every unnecessary $1 on the BOM can cost thousands of dollars in lost sales and profits if a competitor can make a similar device that covers the same core functionality with a lower BoM and sticker price.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22604051 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:47:59 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22603934 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22603934 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:31:59 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22603719 said by InvalidError:

The WRT160's is an application-tailored Linux-capable hardware platform designed to route internet traffic at ~80Mbps, which is all that a "Broadband Router" really needs to be able to do given the broadband speeds currently available in North America and most other places worldwide.
In the NYC Metro Area Cablevision offers 101Mbs speeds so a Gigabit Router is needed if you do not want to get Router Throttled back to the speeds that a 100Base-T port can deliver (assuming that the router's CPU chip can keep up with the Modem). Having Gigabit Ports Future Proof for when the speeds require it as well as supporting faster LAN Speeds (CPU-to-CPU transfers). BTW: I think Japan has speeds in the 100+Mbs range right now so your "Most Places Worldwide" does not apply there (and the US has very low average max rates for a number of reasons).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22603719 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:59:32 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22603595 said by Guspaz:

IMO gigabit is not crucial in a router. It only truly needs to communicate with the internet (sub-100mbit) and wireless (sub-100mbit). If gigabit communications are required, a cheap gigabit switch would fit the bill.
I disagree with you on the lack of need for Gigabit Ports. Right now the availability of 100+Mbs Internet Connectivity is minimal but having it will Future Proof your network for when it is more available and you want it. It also allows the computers on your LAN to talk to each other using 1000Base-T speeds in lieu of the current 100Base-T speeds. If you live in the Cablevision (NYC Metro Area) footprint, you need Gigabit Ports on your Router to take advantage of their ULTRA (101 Down) tier.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22603595 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:40:11 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22603317 But it seems to be undergoing changes -- even the "donate" button has disappeared from when I posted a few hours ago.

What I meant to say, although I did it very, very poorly, was that a message to the primary developer (Jon aka tofu), together with a designated donation, might be most effective.

There are several other developers who have made specific mods, as well. (Victek, Teddy Bear)

Tomato Forum: »www.linksysinfo.org/forums/forum···hp?f=160

Donations/Wishlist FAQ: »www.linksysinfo.org/forums/showp···count=27
Jon's Forum contact: »www.linksysinfo.org/forums/membe···u=424924

WRT160NL thread: »www.linksysinfo.org/forums/showt···?t=62160

WRT6??N thread:
»www.linksysinfo.org/forums/showt···?t=59287
Hope that's more useful. :-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22603317 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:51:28 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22603137
The router I'm using at the moment, supports FTP, Telnet, file sharing via Samba, VPN and a laundry list of router features. It supports USB attached hard drives and (USB) printers (as network printers). My router suffers most from limited RAM and flash memory resources. The interface, the version of the software, are all limited by design decisions made for the router. As a result the utility is limited.

Open source Linksys router design is very limited by the quantity of flash and RAM. As a result my router is running a very old version of Samba, it doesn't support encrypted FTP (or more generally the WinSCP interface), and doesn't have support for NTFS flash drives (well it sort of does, but it takes a bit of work, the support is a bit of a kludge). My router has no room for extra features which would possibly support media sharing, even file sharing over internet.

There is a lot of interesting stuff an enthusiast router could do for us. Media server, network storage, VPN, VOIP, bluetooth, wireless telco modems, home security, webcams, various file sharing and what not. The current Linksys routers lack sufficient flash and RAM to make this happen. Generally the Linux OS has to be compressed into flash (as there isn't enough flash) then pushed out into RAM (which makes the scarce RAM even more so).

IMO an enthusiast router, would support a lot of RAM, flash, gigabit, at least 2 USB ports and have one or two ESATA ports. If Linksys released a device, it would be well embraced by the mod community, and we'd see a lot of development on it IMO. If possible even an RJ11 jack to support VOIP ATA capability would be a nice addition.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22603137 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:19:14 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22603054 said by pandora:

For a box which will support customized Linux software, I'd like to see some room to spare.

IF Linksys wants to make an enthusiasts router, my suggestions stand.Personally, if I buy a "Broadband Router", I want to PAY for a "Broadband Router", not an all-in-one digital convergence appliance that does 24-ports GbE managed switching, routing, NAS, realtime 2160p60 video encoding, etc.

The WRT160's is an application-tailored Linux-capable hardware platform designed to route internet traffic at ~80Mbps, which is all that a "Broadband Router" really needs to be able to do given the broadband speeds currently available in North America and most other places worldwide.

said by pandora:

What I'd like would be an open source slim Linux box with some muscle.
Then you should probably look at something other than a broadband router designed to run a stripped-down Linux kernel.

Linksys/Cisco makes Linux-based WRT routers because it saves them the trouble of maintaining every little detail of the software stack on their low-cost routers: most of it is maintained by other OSS developers, all Linksys has to do is apply patches, rebuild and test.

Earning points with the enthusiast crowd is an unintended benefit since this success storry began with an horrible PR fiasco: remember how the original WRT's Linux-based firmware was closed-source until GNU/EFF sued Linksys to force them to release it?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22603054 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:02:01 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22602773 said by InvalidError:

If you want/need full-featured, full-speed NAS, you should buy an actual NAS box instead of a broadband router where NAS capability is only thrown in for the woo-factor in a cost-sensitive market.
I started with NAS on my router. It was too slow. A USB connected to an external notebook drive with a 10/100 connection just isn't fast enough. I've moved up to 2 Linkstation devices (one Pro one Live). They support gigabit ethernet. I'm in the process of upgrading my primary (24 port) switch to gigabit (the new switch was ordered yesterday). 100 doesn't cut it for NAS IMO. Squeezing Tomato into a 4 or 8 MB flash, then having 16-32 MB of RAM is too tight today, and will be worse in the future. For a box which will support customized Linux software, I'd like to see some room to spare.

IF Linksys wants to make an enthusiasts router, my suggestions stand. What I'd like (and I guess may other enthusiasts) would be an open source slim Linux box with some muscle.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22602773 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:11:38 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22602645 said by planiwa:

said by PXA:

Does Tomato have any official forums where people can ask that they support this new router? Given the WRT54GL's limited and decreasing availability, it would really be nice to see them add support for this and I'd love to be able to tell them that even though I've already donated to their project, I would happily do so again to see this new model be supported.
Tomato is not a commercial product.

The best place "where people can ask that they support this new router", as you put it, is where you donate money to the volunteer developer:

»www.polarcloud.com/ -- you'll see the "Donate" button . . .
As I said in my post, I have already donated to the project in the past because I think it is great and I would donate again to ensure support for this new N router. But just donating them additional money without being able to tell them why doesn't really help ensure they know what the community would like to see happen.
--
Parallax Abstraction,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
blog.digital-lifeline.ca]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22602645 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:52:09 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22602631 said by GNca George:

Only three Ethernets though, so personally I would separate out the MLPPP in one router from the N radio in another. It would end up faster and cheaper at the end of the day.
that's what i've done. probably would be fine for most people. i've got my 3 modems going to the wrt54gl then from there to a gige switch and then out to a wrt350n for the wireless.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22602631 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:49:33 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22602148
They are not particularly cheap, probably $350-400 by the time you assemble everything, but they will push 200-300 mbits of real data through the N radios.

Only three Ethernets though, so personally I would separate out the MLPPP in one router from the N radio in another. It would end up faster and cheaper at the end of the day.

The pic shows N performance on a lower-end RB411, the test is between two RBs so the Ethernets don't come into it...
Click for full size
N radio test
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22602148 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:41:06 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22602095 said by pandora:

A replacement for a WRT54GL should really have 2 USB ports and 1 or 2 ESATA ports IMO plus it should be gigabit ethernet capable.
GbE would have been nice since 100Mbps for broadband+LAN+11N switching is starting to get a little tight.

As for the rest, a faster CPU would be required to handle NAS at GbE speeds and extra hardware (connectors) to expose all the SoC's interfaces would be required. This would inflate the retail price with features relatively few people would make serious use of in a market where a $10 price advantage can make or break sales.

The single USB port costs Linksys almost nothing but adds a considerable amount of perceived value among similarly-priced components. Extra NAS connectivity brings very little extra perceived value to the typical broadband router buyer.

If you want/need full-featured, full-speed NAS, you should buy an actual NAS box instead of a broadband router where NAS capability is only thrown in for the woo-factor in a cost-sensitive market.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22602095 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:32:17 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22601755 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22601755 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:17:42 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22601199 said by PXA:

Does Tomato have any official forums where people can ask that they support this new router? Given the WRT54GL's limited and decreasing availability, it would really be nice to see them add support for this and I'd love to be able to tell them that even though I've already donated to their project, I would happily do so again to see this new model be supported.
Tomato is not a commercial product.

The best place "where people can ask that they support this new router", as you put it, is where you donate money to the volunteer developer:

»www.polarcloud.com/ -- you'll see the "Donate" button . . .]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22601199 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:00:51 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22601143 said by insomniac84:

And I am not sure what your point is. In your first post you referenced dd-wrt. The fact is if you want a cheap N router that works with dd-wrt the buffalo works. You don't have to like it, but it exists in case someone doesn't want to spend twice as much on an N router if there focus is dd-wrt. And it's hardly the worst router for custom firmwares, since it actually works for at least one of them.
Umm, you don't seem to understand. I'm the co-developer of Tomato/MLPPP, a custom firmware designed to allow users to bond multiple DSL lines using MLPPP. It's a patch set for the Tomato firmware. This is probably the only custom firmware that most people in this forum are interested in running. Running dd-wrt on the Buffalo is useless to us. dd-wrt doesn't support MLPPP, and probably never properly will.

I only mentioned DD-WRT because it was to illustrate how few 802.11n routers support custom firmwares in general. Very few support anything at all, and those that do support it run DD-WRT (which is not what we need).

As to why we chose Tomato as the base for our work rather than DD-WRT, at the time we felt that Tomato had a much superior interface, a much easier QoS implementation, and was far more reliable (by virtue of doing less things, but doing less things better). It was a good (simpler) base to work from.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22601143 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:18:49 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22601137 said by PXA:

Does Tomato have any official forums where people can ask that they support this new router? Given the WRT54GL's limited and decreasing availability, it would really be nice to see them add support for this and I'd love to be able to tell them that even though I've already donated to their project, I would happily do so again to see this new model be supported.
Not really. For Tomato/MLPPP, there is here. For Tomato itself, probably linksysinfo is the closest there is.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22601137 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:15:05 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22601111
And I am not sure what your point is. In your first post you referenced dd-wrt. The fact is if you want a cheap N router that works with dd-wrt the buffalo works. You don't have to like it, but it exists in case someone doesn't want to spend twice as much on an N router if there focus is dd-wrt. And it's hardly the worst router for custom firmwares, since it actually works for at least one of them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22601111 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:46:44 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600633 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600633 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:37:42 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600543 said by insomniac84:

said by Guspaz:

"Buffalo, unfortunately, encrypts their firmware, and their routers will accept only encrypted firmware in the web interface."

Yeah, it's a pretty modder-unfriendly router, that Buffalo. It's supported by a very few unstable builds of DD-WRT and nothing else, not even Open-WRT. And NewEgg's reviews are 3/5 with the first commenter saying it is a "Nice paper weight"
Well that is a complete lie.A lie? The first part is from the page you linked to. As for the statement that it's not exactly modder friendly, it runs, as far as you've shown, on ONE build of ONE firmware, and apparently even that required the developer jumping through hoops so that people didn't need to crack open the router case. And you had to dig up an old OS just to install it, since it wasn't possible with a recent version of Windows. Thanks, I'll stick to developing firmware for routers that are a bit more friendly to my efforts. Besides this, our work is based on Tomato, and unless we took the effort to port it, the WHR-G300N is unlikely to be supported.

It sounds like you are biased for a brand which is both funny and sad.
The last router I bought/acquired was an Asus. Before that, an Alix. I co-develop firmware that runs on a variety of routers, and regularly recommend the Asus WL-520GU due to the cost. Where's the funny/sad Linksys bias? I'm not seeing it.

I bought one last week to replace a wrt54glv2 that was dying and am using the buffalo right now.
That's unlikely, since that router doesn't exist. The most recent WRT54GL is the v1.1.

The thing seems to have zero problems. Most likely the bad review was from an older version of the firmware or someone who tried to flash it before they made the tftp version. I am using "DD-WRT v24-sp2 (05/21/09) std - build 12188" which is the version it recommends on dd-wrt.com.

All you do is download the "firmware.tftp" which is the tftp version of the firmware and go to »dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/WHR-G300N
That's good for you, but of little interest to anybody who wants to use Tomato/MLPPP. A single build of dd-wrt does not a modding-friendly router make. Linksys went out of their way to make the WRT160NL friendly to developers such as myself, while the Buffalo actively seeks to discourage developers from working with the hardware. You'll note that the dd-wrt developer also has a commercial partnership with Buffalo, and may have access to information about the hardware that allows him to support it. It may be impossible to port anything else to the router, which would make it just about the *worst* router for custom firmware.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600543 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:17:48 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600460

Photo of my brick
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600460 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:57:02 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600431 said by Guspaz:

"Buffalo, unfortunately, encrypts their firmware, and their routers will accept only encrypted firmware in the web interface."

Yeah, it's a pretty modder-unfriendly router, that Buffalo. It's supported by a very few unstable builds of DD-WRT and nothing else, not even Open-WRT. And NewEgg's reviews are 3/5 with the first commenter saying it is a "Nice paper weight"
Well that is a complete lie. It sounds like you are biased for a brand which is both funny and sad. I bought one last week to replace a wrt54glv2 that was dying and am using the buffalo right now. The thing seems to have zero problems. Most likely the bad review was from an older version of the firmware or someone who tried to flash it before they made the tftp version. I am using "DD-WRT v24-sp2 (05/21/09) std - build 12188" which is the version it recommends on dd-wrt.com.

All you do is download the "firmware.tftp" which is the tftp version of the firmware and go to »dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/WHR-G300N
quote:
The latest DD-WRT build has a new, easy, and safe way to flash a WHR-G300N router. To do this, just Tftp_flash the firmware.tftp image to 192.168.11.1 in the 1st three seconds of booting when the router is in recovery mode.


Just load it up via tftp and the thing works instantly. The only problem I had was that windows 7 had too much of a delay in connecting via ethernet to flash it in the first 3 seconds. I had to use an xp machine to get it to work.

I bought it because all of linksys's routers were way to expensive. It's like they are using "N" as an excuse to jack their prices up. Personally 110 bucks for a router to me is ridiculous. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600431 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:49:39 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600377 said by Guspaz:

FYI: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n

As far as I can tell, 600mbit needs 4 spatial streams and 40MHz channels. You'll note that "54mbit" 802.11g only does 19mbit/s in practice.
Finding a clean enough 40mhz of bandwidth in pretty much any environment in 2.4ghz to reach these speeds is what I call virtually impossible.

On a side note, its really easy to reach 32 megs a second in 20mhz of spectrum using mikrotik proprietary polling with CSMA disabled ;)

That atheros processor will own for sure. They are well supported in linux.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600377 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:39:07 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600244 said by pandora:

I've been reading this thread.

I don't see this as much of an upgrade without gigabit support. My current use for my Linksys WRTSL54GS is as both a router and as NAS. It's greatest limitation is a USB (as opposed to an ESATA) and 10 / 100 ethernet.

A replacement for a WRT54GL should really have 2 USB ports and 1 or 2 ESATA ports IMO plus it should be gigabit ethernet capable.

The vanilla firmware should support IPv4 and IPv6 out of the box.

Flash memory should be 32-64MB, and RAM should be at least 128MB, possibly 512MB.

It is time Linksys released a router which was also a slim Linux box with some capability.
Gigabit really isn't required, since no device that must be connected to a wifi router requires that speed. The router can always be connected to a cheap gigabit switch to get identical functionality.

Asking for 32-64 megs of flash and 128-512 megs of ram is unreasonably high. If you want that sort of functionality, you should look into the Alix 2d3 boxes, which have 500MHz AMD Geode (x86) processors, three NICs, two USB ports, 256MB of RAM, optional wireless, and as much flash as you can cram into a CF card. They're smaller than a WRT54GL, run any stock Linux distro you want (including ZeroShell/MLPPP), and cost IIRC something in the neighbourhood of $200 all-in.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600244 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:10:53 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600190
I don't see this as much of an upgrade without gigabit support. My current use for my Linksys WRTSL54GS is as both a router and as NAS. It's greatest limitation is a USB (as opposed to an ESATA) and 10 / 100 ethernet.

A replacement for a WRT54GL should really have 2 USB ports and 1 or 2 ESATA ports IMO plus it should be gigabit ethernet capable.

The vanilla firmware should support IPv4 and IPv6 out of the box.

Flash memory should be 32-64MB, and RAM should be at least 128MB, possibly 512MB.

It is time Linksys released a router which was also a slim Linux box with some capability.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600190 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:02:06 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600186 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600186 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:01:48 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600163 said by insomniac84:

said by Guspaz:

As many of you are aware, there is extremely limited support for custom firmware on 802.11n routers. There are a handful that sort-of work, like DD-WRT will run on *SOME* versions of certain routers, but not all.

Linksys just announced the successor to the venerable WRT54GL: the WRT160NL. Sells for $110 USD:
Utterly ridiculous.

»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···33162026

$50 dollar buffalo router that works perfectly fine with dd-wrt. The 802.11n also works fine.

They need to do much much better on their price.
"Buffalo, unfortunately, encrypts their firmware, and their routers will accept only encrypted firmware in the web interface."

Yeah, it's a pretty modder-unfriendly router, that Buffalo. It's supported by a very few unstable builds of DD-WRT and nothing else, not even Open-WRT. And NewEgg's reviews are 3/5 with the first commenter saying it is a "Nice paper weight"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600163 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:57:59 EDT Re: Linksys announces the WRT54GL's successor: WRT160NL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600092 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Linksys-announces-the-WRT54GLs-successor-WRT160NL-22600092 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:44:12 EDT