Joined: 25 Dec 2020 Posts: 90 Location: Toronto - Canada
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2023 16:01 Post subject: GT-AC5300 Inquiry
@Brainslayer or anyone that may know.
Wondering if anyone has donated a GT-AC5300 yet, if it's something DD-WRT is working on? Or is this model going to be skipped all together? I know it was a pretty costly unit when it first came out since the hardware is good, but pretty sure people must be upgrading to the newer 6Ghz routers now and might start to donate this model?
I just picked up a GT-AC5300 myself, but because the firmware, although stable, is somewhat limited for the hardware in this thing, (some stuff they put into the firmware is wasting resources, too) I am going to use it as an AP and switch only, for now, attached to my R7800 running DD-WRT. But if DD-WRT plans to skip this model, I'll likely get ride of it and get something else soon.
Joined: 25 Dec 2020 Posts: 90 Location: Toronto - Canada
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2023 9:07 Post subject:
Hapi12021 wrote:
The GT-AC5300 is a weird beast. It’s BCM4908 (same as R8000P), 64-bit ARMV8, with a second non-BCM switch integrated on top of the BCM SOC.
It’s my understanding that no FOSS drivers exist for the second switch, although that information may be outdated.
Does DD have any 64-bit ARMV8 targets, presently?
egc wrote:
Not for Broadcom and it is unlikely there will be any for Broadcom as those drivers are closed source (for the accompanying radios that is)
For Atheros/Qualcomm and Mediatek that is in the works
Well, that really sucks. Single subnet AP and switch it is, then. Kinda sucks since this thing is so powerful, but then limited by the bloatware firmware they put on it!. I can't even set VLANs manually because of the IPTV software they put into the firmware. Oh well, live and learn, as they say.
It’s a shame, that it’s such a nice device, but isn’t even supported by Merlin either.
Seems that Asus abandoned the platform and made significant changes to the AX line, which the GT-AC5300 is very similar to.
I haven’t tried it, but does “vconfig” exist in the default Asus build? If so, you could, in theory, use “brctl” to set up bridges (one per VLAN) and tag via the bridge using just Linux functionality. Of course that means you can really still only have the three default VLANS anyway: WAN, guest (Wi-Fi-only) and inside, since the switches wouldn’t be segmentable.
Joined: 25 Dec 2020 Posts: 90 Location: Toronto - Canada
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2023 17:29 Post subject:
Hapi12021 wrote:
It’s a shame, that it’s such a nice device, but isn’t even supported by Merlin either.
Seems that Asus abandoned the platform and made significant changes to the AX line, which the GT-AC5300 is very similar to.
I haven’t tried it, but does “vconfig” exist in the default Asus build? If so, you could, in theory, use “brctl” to set up bridges (one per VLAN) and tag via the bridge using just Linux functionality. Of course that means you can really still only have the three default VLANS anyway: WAN, guest (Wi-Fi-only) and inside, since the switches wouldn’t be segmentable.
Yeah, I can set the VLANs with busybox, but the thing is, they have some bloatware for IPTV that configures bridges and some other auto loading software for the switch that I don't think I'd have any control over without causing issues. I might try it in AP mode, which disables the DHCP, IPTV and WAN aggregation, leaving only the port 5 and 6 with software for LAN aggregation. However, not sure if whatever is turning off the IPTV will also interfere with the VLAN I set up during the boot, since I noticed that the guest isolation is also turned off with that, even though the isolation check box is present on the main WLAN Web GUI. I can get my main router to assign two subnets, but I get broadcast loops, of course. That's as far as I have gone so far. Something I may play around with more, but with all their bloatware to make things easier for the average home user, might have issues with things reseting or getting messed up during bootup.
I can have up to 9 guest networks, 3 per radio. Each creates it's own VLAN, too. Well I have only turned on three so far.
You make neurodivergent people scream bloody murder inside their head all day long. None of these threads seem to be locked, but let's open another one and avoid the hardware donation, because freedom.
ASUS GT AC5300 _________________ "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep." - Robert Frost
"I am one of the noticeable ones - notice me" - Dale Frances McKenzie Bozzio
Joined: 25 Dec 2020 Posts: 90 Location: Toronto - Canada
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:31 Post subject:
dale_gribble39 wrote:
You make neurodivergent people scream bloody murder inside their head all day long. None of these threads seem to be locked, but let's open another one and avoid the hardware donation, because freedom.
I am actually glade you did that, because I see different answers and get different answers in posts a lot, depending on who responds.
I was told some time ago that DD-WRT had Broadcom driver support and some sort of signed contract to allow DD-WRT to use them. I know openWRT is another story, but if Asus uses WRT already, and if DD-WRT has a signed contract with Broadcom, assuming I was told correctly, then why would it need an open source driver for the GT-AC5300? I have seen other Broadcom routers on DD-WRT that do not have opensource drivers, too.
Anyone know why some drivers from Broadcom are usable while others are not?
I am actually glade you did that, because I see different answers and get different answers in posts a lot, depending on who responds.
I was told some time ago that DD-WRT had Broadcom driver support and some sort of signed contract to allow DD-WRT to use them. I know openWRT is another story, but if Asus uses WRT already, and if DD-WRT has a signed contract with Broadcom, assuming I was told correctly, then why would it need an open source driver for the GT-AC5300? I have seen other Broadcom routers on DD-WRT that do not have opensource drivers, too.
Anyone know why some drivers from Broadcom are usable while others are not?
The drivers, I’m thinking, only come as compiled object code, and not compilable source, so need to fit into only certain kernel versions due to functional support. Not every kernel version is compatible, nor is every libc and runtime. That’s why there is also the FOSS experimental driver based that OpenWRT and general Linux use for BCM. Unfortunately, it lacks support and features for a good number of hardware. The driver model for the GT/AX series is kernel 4.1 64-bit, if I’m not mistaken, and that is more exclusive than the old 32-bit 2.6 series that underpins Tomato and the < AX drivers they support.
DD also seems to have made some kernel choices that exclude certain hardware support, in the name of supporting more hardware rather than branching off for the unicorns. Netgear has seen more and better support even though most Asus devices utilize the same or similar hardware, and Asus actually used to do a better job of publishing their GPL code which was put to use in Merlin.
I’m in the process of moving my network away from all-in-one routers and repurposing them as just APs anyway. I’m gearing up with used enterprise switches and dedicated firewall and routing, so want as little functionality as possible on the radio hardware, to get the latest standards without throwing money away on half-baked advanced networking that the current crop of standalone routers offers.
Joined: 25 Dec 2020 Posts: 90 Location: Toronto - Canada
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:13 Post subject:
Hapi12021 wrote:
CR_Apollo wrote:
I am actually glade you did that, because I see different answers and get different answers in posts a lot, depending on who responds.
I was told some time ago that DD-WRT had Broadcom driver support and some sort of signed contract to allow DD-WRT to use them. I know openWRT is another story, but if Asus uses WRT already, and if DD-WRT has a signed contract with Broadcom, assuming I was told correctly, then why would it need an open source driver for the GT-AC5300? I have seen other Broadcom routers on DD-WRT that do not have opensource drivers, too.
Anyone know why some drivers from Broadcom are usable while others are not?
The drivers, I’m thinking, only come as compiled object code, and not compilable source, so need to fit into only certain kernel versions due to functional support. Not every kernel version is compatible, nor is every libc and runtime. That’s why there is also the FOSS experimental driver based that OpenWRT and general Linux use for BCM. Unfortunately, it lacks support and features for a good number of hardware. The driver model for the GT/AX series is kernel 4.1 64-bit, if I’m not mistaken, and that is more exclusive than the old 32-bit 2.6 series that underpins Tomato and the < AX drivers they support.
DD also seems to have made some kernel choices that exclude certain hardware support, in the name of supporting more hardware rather than branching off for the unicorns. Netgear has seen more and better support even though most Asus devices utilize the same or similar hardware, and Asus actually used to do a better job of publishing their GPL code which was put to use in Merlin.
I’m in the process of moving my network away from all-in-one routers and repurposing them as just APs anyway. I’m gearing up with used enterprise switches and dedicated firewall and routing, so want as little functionality as possible on the radio hardware, to get the latest standards without throwing money away on half-baked advanced networking that the current crop of standalone routers offers.
Thanks for the details, this makes a lot more sense now. If you cannot take what you need out of the code for the purpose of recompiling it for use in another environment, either you rebuild it from scratch, or only use it in the environments it is meant for. I am sure there is a reason for that, likely security, to protect the code from exploits. For the FOSS project, sounds like it may even be limited, probably not always the best driver support.
I think I am on the same path, this all seems like too much work for the developers now, with all the different router hardware coming out, just does not seem feasible to be keep up anymore, and by the time they build a new firmware to support something, people are buying the next model.
Ideally, I think specialized firmware should focus on those unicorns over the higher volume, since the unicorns tend to stick around a lot longer than the ones that get replaced almost two to three years after purchase, making the custom code obsolete sooner. I mean, if I was buying the 150-200$ router, there's a good chance I'd replace it sooner than the ones I go for. Although some better routers use same tech too, they seem to be fewer and fewer these days. The R7800 is still a powerful router and can manage everything I throw at it, especially now that I have the 5300 to take some/most (60%) of the AP load, but unfortunately not with WPA3, but then I'll just use a longer repeating password, is all. At least the Asus firmware in this thing seems like it will stand up, at least I hope!
Thanks for the details, this makes a lot more sense now. If you cannot take what you need out of the code for the purpose of recompiling it for use in another environment, either you rebuild it from scratch, or only use it in the environments it is meant for. I am sure there is a reason for that, likely security, to protect the code from exploits. For the FOSS project, sounds like it may even be limited, probably not always the best driver support.
I think I am on the same path, this all seems like too much work for the developers now, with all the different router hardware coming out, just does not seem feasible to be keep up anymore, and by the time they build a new firmware to support something, people are buying the next model.
Ideally, I think specialized firmware should focus on those unicorns over the higher volume, since the unicorns tend to stick around a lot longer than the ones that get replaced almost two to three years after purchase, making the custom code obsolete sooner. I mean, if I was buying the 150-200$ router, there's a good chance I'd replace it sooner than the ones I go for. Although some better routers use same tech too, they seem to be fewer and fewer these days. The R7800 is still a powerful router and can manage everything I throw at it, especially now that I have the 5300 to take some/most (60%) of the AP load, but unfortunately not with WPA3, but then I'll just use a longer repeating password, is all. At least the Asus firmware in this thing seems like it will stand up, at least I hope!
Thanks again for the details!
Off-topic for sure, but the state of the WiFi industry is one that wants to now close-source everything to keep their IP and security a secret. There’s finite performance gains available in wireless networking and the established players want to ensure the money keeps coming in and not disturb their hegemony. That, unfortunately, spells the end of open-systems for routers that we’ve known for decades.
If we had a real WiFi guidance board, like we do for other things-internet, they would publish a hardware/software specification that all vendors must support to be licensed, at a minimum, with example driver code. What we have, in reality, is a consortium-oligarchy that is run solely by the hardware manufacturers that agree to loose standards without allowing any real openness. The FTC / FCC in the US is feckless and powerless to make any substantive changes because the routers operate exclusively upon unregulated frequencies.
Maybe Europe will do a better job of regulating the tech, but I think they’re beholden to the manufacturers as well, because what you say is more true of bureaucrats as tech-literate: if it’s too much difficulty to reverse-engineer and support hardware, no politician is going to really understand why and how they should break open the market.
There are certainly individuals that can do the work necessary to reverse-engineer the driver support for the hardware, but they end up being threatened by lawsuits or patent infringement, or otherwise coopted and hired by the companies themselves or their competitors.
For most of these reasons, I’ve largely given up on tech regulation and, especially with wireless, now just only purchase the minimum hardware required for my operation. I’m not going to reward the trend of how these companies are behaving with large purchases of high-end equipment and look for used parts almost exclusively to deny them further profit.
Joined: 25 Dec 2020 Posts: 90 Location: Toronto - Canada
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2023 0:13 Post subject:
Hapi12021 wrote:
CR_Apollo wrote:
Thanks for the details, this makes a lot more sense now. If you cannot take what you need out of the code for the purpose of recompiling it for use in another environment, either you rebuild it from scratch, or only use it in the environments it is meant for. I am sure there is a reason for that, likely security, to protect the code from exploits. For the FOSS project, sounds like it may even be limited, probably not always the best driver support.
I think I am on the same path, this all seems like too much work for the developers now, with all the different router hardware coming out, just does not seem feasible to be keep up anymore, and by the time they build a new firmware to support something, people are buying the next model.
Ideally, I think specialized firmware should focus on those unicorns over the higher volume, since the unicorns tend to stick around a lot longer than the ones that get replaced almost two to three years after purchase, making the custom code obsolete sooner. I mean, if I was buying the 150-200$ router, there's a good chance I'd replace it sooner than the ones I go for. Although some better routers use same tech too, they seem to be fewer and fewer these days. The R7800 is still a powerful router and can manage everything I throw at it, especially now that I have the 5300 to take some/most (60%) of the AP load, but unfortunately not with WPA3, but then I'll just use a longer repeating password, is all. At least the Asus firmware in this thing seems like it will stand up, at least I hope!
Thanks again for the details!
Off-topic for sure, but the state of the WiFi industry is one that wants to now close-source everything to keep their IP and security a secret. There’s finite performance gains available in wireless networking and the established players want to ensure the money keeps coming in and not disturb their hegemony. That, unfortunately, spells the end of open-systems for routers that we’ve known for decades.
If we had a real WiFi guidance board, like we do for other things-internet, they would publish a hardware/software specification that all vendors must support to be licensed, at a minimum, with example driver code. What we have, in reality, is a consortium-oligarchy that is run solely by the hardware manufacturers that agree to loose standards without allowing any real openness. The FTC / FCC in the US is feckless and powerless to make any substantive changes because the routers operate exclusively upon unregulated frequencies.
Maybe Europe will do a better job of regulating the tech, but I think they’re beholden to the manufacturers as well, because what you say is more true of bureaucrats as tech-literate: if it’s too much difficulty to reverse-engineer and support hardware, no politician is going to really understand why and how they should break open the market.
There are certainly individuals that can do the work necessary to reverse-engineer the driver support for the hardware, but they end up being threatened by lawsuits or patent infringement, or otherwise coopted and hired by the companies themselves or their competitors.
For most of these reasons, I’ve largely given up on tech regulation and, especially with wireless, now just only purchase the minimum hardware required for my operation. I’m not going to reward the trend of how these companies are behaving with large purchases of high-end equipment and look for used parts almost exclusively to deny them further profit.
Totally agree with the "stick it to them". If I had to pay full price for this router, I'd have never bought it. But 100$ CAN, just could not pass it up. At the time I bought it, I had read the post from KP that they were waiting on a donation, so I was hopeful and jumped on the deal without too much investigation. But even still, all in all, I am going to use it as an AP and switch, and although a lot of resources wasted, there's really only so much of which will even benefit huge WIFI client loads (eventually it's better to increase bands than increase power). I can always add my R8000 lab router with another 2 bands, but doubt I'll ever need to. So, in no way in need of buying anything for quite some time here. No money for this tech coming from me any time soon! lol
lol