While I fully grasp and understand the need to come to a difficult decision of discontinuing support of the LinkSys WRT 54 hardware I hope that the software developers haven't gotten "tunnel vision" with regard to the people who volunteer their time, QTH's and resources for the MESH project.

Personally I have MANY WRT's in locations all over my region and am disgusted that newer hardware will NOT be able to be BACKWARDS compatible with the legacy equipment already in place!

I am not a person who has disposable income for my Ham Radio projects, buying the newest, latest, greatest piece of hardware out there..... I budget my money for projects as required. It makes no sense to me (or others I have spoken to) why a vertical marketing strategy for the MESH has taken place.

Who will promise that in another year that the Ubiquity hardware won't be tossed aside for the next greatest doo-dad?? Will that decision be as easily made as the one to discontinue LinkSys??

Is the "end-game" to create a saleable item to the general public in a for-profit mode that was built on the backs of hams?

The choice for no backwards compatibility is a puzzling one.... even if the newer hardware supported a vast amount of options that the older hardware couldn't fully support the older hardware should have been allowed to still participate in the MESH, supporting what it COULD do, rather than being cast aside for what it CANNOT do..

Any insight on reasons OTHER that the fact that the firmware has become BLOATED beyond the limits of the LinkSys hardware would be extremely well received..

I guess MY LinkSys hardware will be disposed of and MY nodes will go silent....

73 de

Rich Ser

N2PPN

I see it more as there's not going to be any further development for that equipment.Basically the same thing as Icom won't support my old IC-2AT. Nothing stopping it from working, or me continuing to use it for events, but if I have a problem with it, I can't expect Icom to tell me what to do to fix it, or for them to fix it or continue providing parts for it. The way I understand the versioning, you can continue to use the Linksys stuff with versions of the protocol up to the last one compatible with the hardware (currently V3). I also understand the protocol version isn't changed unless there is a compelling technical reason to do so. It might not be as powerful or sensative as "replacement" models, such as my IC-91AD, but on FM, those two will talk as long as the batteries hold out.

As noted new software versions do not always mean an incompatibility, only a protocol change means a compatibility issue. 

I have dozens of older FM radios that can connect to nothing but themselves or other older generation radios.

Why? Lack of PL tone, same concept with DCS tones. Or how about Narrow Band FM (2.5khz deviation)

Each of these features is very much like a protocol version change is in BBHN.  We change something in protocol that is no longer compatible. While they all use the low end same modulation (like FM radios) they don't all talk to each other if one is a v1 no tone, one is a v2 tsql, and one is a v3 DCS.  They may all be FM but they are not compatible. Ending support for Linksys would be a lot like a major radio manufacture after announcing Tone SQL saying "no we are not going to go back and rebuild the firmware on your old HT to generate a PL tone for you". 

I'm working on a document to better explain and detail the reasons that went into it, but the overall reason was basically the Linksys devices have been pushed to their limits, have significant hardware flaws, are starting to actually fail in the field, are no longer maintained by our upstream operating system (meaning the work load to keep them in sync will increase massively ).. The Linksys units are bassicalky holding back development where they once advanced it.

The development team is 100% volunteers.  No money is changing hands and no product is being developed the only item developed is the firmware we provide which provides an ability for Amateur Operators to deploy these devices easily where they need to and provide the services they need to their local community where it has not been easily doable before.

We know the Linksys are still in use, and you can keep them in use as long as you want, it's similar to the concept of your home computer, do you expect an old 286 to run the latest version of Windows 8?  It doesn't happen and it can't happen.  

Whatever firmware we end with will as noted in the release remain forever.  If you want you can keep your network at that version forever and still link with those of the same protocol, I still hear of older v0 networks in service.   It's just we can't keep back porting advancements  and keep the systems compatible if the platform isn't proving the resource, or the volunteers, to do it.  

I'm not really sure what you think we have here in San Diego, it sounds like you think we have this well established network that everyone has been flocking to for years, we don't.

I've seen talk of mesh get thrown out of the room and not even taken seriously with the Linksys gear, it actually did a lot of harm out here, but I personally respect and know how big a platform its been for users since they rolled off the line in 2003/2004. 

I've been searching for a year to find a wrt54g node of my own for my personal lab, so far all my programming and comparing has been off nodes I have borrowed from friends whom were willing to lend them to the cause.

Kinda hard for me to create a network when I can't get the gear gear.

In our case our FIRST MAJOR node just went up for testing Wednesday, at around 5600ft ASL atop Palomar Mountain, on 5.8GHz. We could not done this with 2.4GHz (other gear in the way) and never with Linksys (Wouldn't survive)  yet despite that I've been actively writing code to support the Linksys software (something I haven't seen anyone else step forward and offer in the year I have been with the project)

As for cost, its an illusion that WRT54G's are cheaper, yes they are cheaper when you just buy the node, but after you add in all the items you need (antennas, boxes, heaters, coolers, etc) they quickly become double to triple the cost of a Ubiquiti for deployment cost per node. The lower performance also requires a higher count of nodes to reach the same level of quality (increase the cost again)

I know I'm a bit lucky with what i have, I have RF noise to deal with on 2.4 and 5.8 but that has to be a lot less than the Long Island area (as you mention so many hotspots per square foot)  I would think you would want to help in moving to additional bands (Something the Linksys could never do and has already held back)  We now have 2.4,5.8, and 900mhz and I am working to expand that to even more virgin bands when I have the chance.  Its  part of the equation (again as I mention I'll get a doc up later that better explains it all)  that we could have the programming resource time going to just trying to keep the Linksys devices hobble along or we can let the resources actually do go.

If you look at the contribution of just myself on the YTD its probably around the $50,000 mark between physical expenses and  donated time, so trust me I understand. This doesn't even include everyone else whom has volunteered time to assist over the past year (the biggest surge in support the solution testing in years as far as I can tell). there is a lot of effort involved.

I'm fighting the same issues as you are to train users to the advantages of the hardware (thankfully all I have talked to out here fully understand that Linksys hardware doesn't fit the needs of the county, even though some do still buy them to lab with when they can find them)

The decision wasn't made lightly that I can assure you, it was an in depth analysis and a realization that the Linksys nodes have been a diminishing platform that has served us well, but can't be expected to continue forever, especially with the limited number of volunteers to the project.

Personally I have around 3 dozen WRT54G nodes in various versions and flavors. Six of them brand new WRT54GL routers still in the shrink wrap. I have no plans to dispose of any of them as a result of this End of Support. They are perfectly capable of running the new  3.0.0 firmware and will be capable of connecting to the any firmware released that is still in the v3 version.  

As long as they are still functional, they will be capable of being used for a mesh node. They may not be able to connect to the latest firmware five years from now, but there is nothing stopping them from connecting to another WRT or UBNT running v3 firmware.

According to this website, the Linksys firmware will continue to be available to download and use. There is no one forcing anyone to dump all there equipment and move to the latest and greatest.

One other point, the BBHN team is an all volunteer operation. They are doing this because they believe in this program and are actively working to make this a better and more capable product.  They have spent thousands of their own dollars and countless hours in making BBHN happen.  

The time and resources available to the BBHN team should be focused where it can do the most good. Given those limitations, I personally would rather have them focused on hardware that can support BBHN for the next 10 years rather hardware that is just barely supportable now.  

oops! Dupe Reply... no delete button....

Actually, in the area I am in, I can only use the IC2AT on two of the about a dozen repeaters. That radio has no PL tone. One of the repeaters does not require a PL, the other has a DTMF sequence to temporarily disable the PL requirement.

The Linksys does have V3 firmware available, so V3 isn't an issue. And, yes, technically there are ways to link two networks with different protocols, this can present some challenges, though. Basically you'd be managing two separate networks -- the old V3 for the Linksys nodes, and the (currently hypothetical) V4 for the then currently supported nodes. I should note that version changing compatibility of network protocols tends to slow down after the first few versions. We are only now switching over to HTML 5, we were on V4 about 20 years ago. HTTP is still going strong on v 1.1. As far as more traditional routing protocols, there are only 2 versions of RIP ( used in small intranets). I would anticipate the protocol has probably stabilized, and changes to the firmware are going to be enhancements to the interface and bugfixes.

Rich

In my opinion, there are no "working" v2 networks out there.  The bugs found when v2 was implemented  on larger networks caused my network to crash within hours. These required manual resets of the nodes to get them back on the air. If you are running v2 on you network, please update to v3. I know it is difficult to update all the nodes and get everyone to do the updates of their equipment but in this case it is pretty much mandatory.

Right now all the Linksys gear can have 3.0.0 loaded on them. They will connect with the Ubiquiti gear running 3.0.0. There are still a few nodes using Linksys on the mesh network we have here in Waco. The Linksys boxes are handling the 3.0.0 connections just fine. The problems I personally had in v2 are fixed. Given what I know, I recommend you update everything to 3.0.0 as soon as you can.

The big difference between the protocols between v2 and v3 is the Secure OLSRD module is disabled. It was also disabled in v1. It was on in 0.4.3 but caused problems when activated in v2. I believe v4 will have Secure OLSRD back in it. I also believe that once v4 is released that it will be around for a long time. I am in hopes that it makes it into the last Linksys builds but that is yet to be determined. If that is the case then your Linksys boxes will be viable for a long time to come. Even if they are running 3.x.x they will be a very useful tool. And the 3.x.x firmware can be loaded on the UBNT hardware even if there are future versions to allow for backward compatibility. All you have to do is run the older firmware which will be on the BBHN website.

The answer for how long you can run the Linksys boxes depends on how long the 3.x.x or what ever gets released before EOS is good enough for you to use. I suspect that will be many years.  I see enough uses for the WRT54G to keep mine around. I also know that there are some very clever people out there that can do some amazing things with this hardware. It is likely that someone will figure out how to bridge mesh networks on different revisions. Someone may step up and take on the task of updating the Linksys firmware to allow it to connect to future versions of the firmware. Who knows?

I know this is a little off topic but this is for the member who could not find a wrt54g router.

For a while I have felt this was my little secret and have almost always bee able to buy routers with a tiny price tag. So with the publishing of this link I believe my supply will dry up .

Take a look and you will be hard pressed for a better price, yes they are refurbs but they are MFG direct.

http://store.linksys.com/outlet/Router/linksys-WRT54GL-RM_stcVVproductId118092828VVcatId543906VVviewprod.htm

Good luck

Jeff N9OKV

All WRT54GL's are a compatible version and can be had new for around 50$. They have been specifically made to be just barely be supported (16/4). They are still a scaled down version of the early WRT54G's (32/8).  They are usable as basic nodes under the existing firmware (and can still be bought new at 50$). But as a developer they don't carry enough space (flash or ram) for testing or even for users to do patch upgrading because of the lack flash space.