* [SIG-ARM] Has somebody got interest in Raspberry Pi? @ 2012-03-04 14:03 Michael Tremer 2012-03-05 1:53 ` R. W. Rodolico 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Michael Tremer @ 2012-03-04 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: sig-arm [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2714 bytes --] Hello, it has been a little bit quite on this list, so I am going to start a new conversation about Raspberry Pi, a cheap board with an ARM SoC. Originally, there has been a request on the forums whether IPFire will support this hardware. I would like to pass this question on to the SIG. On the pro side of the equation: The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity and is trying to bring small PCs to poor countries and people who can not afford any. I'd like to support that. Usable software is still missing, but I guess the major distributions will come up with such very soon. However, among them, there is a router/firewall distribution missing, and as IPFire is the only Open Source firewall which has support for ARM, we should consider to enhance this support for the Raspberry Pis as well. We could bring firewalls to poorer countries which is quite nice with IPFire: ISPs are planning to provide LTE (which works with IPFire) and providing a connection to the internet to small networks like in schools. I suppose that is what the R-Pi-Foundation is aiming to do. On the technical side: The hardware should be powerful enough for connections to a couple of MBits/s but too weak for powerful services like the filtering proxy and the intrusion detection system won't work well. The userland of the ARM port should run without any major modification. Maybe we need to make some amendments on tools like the bootloader (U-Boot) or others, but we should not expect any trouble there. The left thing that is to do is to build a new kernel for that device. It uses a Broadcom chipset which is supported by the Linux kernel and does not need any patches unless we want to use the GPU. The contra side: The Raspberry Pi Foundation apparently messed up the launch. It is not possible to get one and a lot of blokes are going to buy the few that were already built to create home servers and stuff like that. That's bad for us, because we cannot test any created code without the hardware. The hardware is weak. As mentioned earlier, it will work for a lot of things, but not all of the features IPFire provides. I consider the project rather a toy than a serious piece of computing hardware, so supposedly the amount of interest will decrease soon when people realize that they cannot really do what they intended to do with the boards in the first place. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The question now is, if it should take the effort and build a new kernel for the Broadcom SoC and support the Raspberry Pi boards. Is somebody willing to do this? Has someone already tried something out? Did you try to order a board? Please mail me your thoughts. Michael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [SIG-ARM] Has somebody got interest in Raspberry Pi? 2012-03-04 14:03 [SIG-ARM] Has somebody got interest in Raspberry Pi? Michael Tremer @ 2012-03-05 1:53 ` R. W. Rodolico 2012-03-05 7:52 ` Arne Fitzenreiter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: R. W. Rodolico @ 2012-03-05 1:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: sig-arm [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3679 bytes --] Michael, The only Rasberry Pi's I've seen only have one NIC in them. Is there a version with at least two? If it only has one NIC, that means we'd have to create an alias (eth0:0) and run the firewall off one physical device, or use some kind of USB ethernet dongle. I looked at the Pi and thought, as you mention, it is too low end for much, though I do think it might make a good home router if it had two NIC's in it. Tell me I'm wrong about the single NIC. I'd love that. But, my vote is no if it only has one NIC. Rod On 03/04/2012 08:03 AM, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hello, > > it has been a little bit quite on this list, so I am going to start a > new conversation about Raspberry Pi, a cheap board with an ARM SoC. > > Originally, there has been a request on the forums whether IPFire will > support this hardware. I would like to pass this question on to the SIG. > > On the pro side of the equation: > > The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity and is trying to bring small > PCs to poor countries and people who can not afford any. I'd like to > support that. > > Usable software is still missing, but I guess the major distributions > will come up with such very soon. However, among them, there is a > router/firewall distribution missing, and as IPFire is the only Open > Source firewall which has support for ARM, we should consider to enhance > this support for the Raspberry Pis as well. We could bring firewalls to > poorer countries which is quite nice with IPFire: ISPs are planning to > provide LTE (which works with IPFire) and providing a connection to the > internet to small networks like in schools. I suppose that is what the > R-Pi-Foundation is aiming to do. > > On the technical side: The hardware should be powerful enough for > connections to a couple of MBits/s but too weak for powerful services > like the filtering proxy and the intrusion detection system won't work > well. > > The userland of the ARM port should run without any major modification. > Maybe we need to make some amendments on tools like the bootloader > (U-Boot) or others, but we should not expect any trouble there. The left > thing that is to do is to build a new kernel for that device. It uses a > Broadcom chipset which is supported by the Linux kernel and does not > need any patches unless we want to use the GPU. > > The contra side: > > The Raspberry Pi Foundation apparently messed up the launch. It is not > possible to get one and a lot of blokes are going to buy the few that > were already built to create home servers and stuff like that. That's > bad for us, because we cannot test any created code without the > hardware. > > The hardware is weak. As mentioned earlier, it will work for a lot of > things, but not all of the features IPFire provides. I consider the > project rather a toy than a serious piece of computing hardware, so > supposedly the amount of interest will decrease soon when people realize > that they cannot really do what they intended to do with the boards in > the first place. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The question now is, if it should take the effort and build a new kernel > for the Broadcom SoC and support the Raspberry Pi boards. Is somebody > willing to do this? Has someone already tried something out? Did you try > to order a board? > > Please mail me your thoughts. > > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > SIG-ARM mailing list > SIG-ARM(a)lists.ipfire.org > http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/sig-arm -- R. W. "Rod" Rodolico Daily Data, Inc. POB 140465 Dallas TX 75214-0465 http://www.dailydata.net 214.827.2170 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [SIG-ARM] Has somebody got interest in Raspberry Pi? 2012-03-05 1:53 ` R. W. Rodolico @ 2012-03-05 7:52 ` Arne Fitzenreiter 2012-03-05 23:17 ` Michael Tremer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Arne Fitzenreiter @ 2012-03-05 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: sig-arm [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4207 bytes --] Hi Rod, you are correct that the Raspberry Pi has only one interface. You need an additional USB Dongle or has to use VLAN's. (Not implemented in the WebIF but the needed tools are present.) The onboard nic on the PI is also an USB-Nic (same SMC-Chip as on the Panda Board) I'm testing an Iomega iConnect box (1Ghz Kirkwood, 256MB RAM) that have also only one onboard lan-nic so i use a usb-lan for red. This box is cheap to get in Germany at the moment (45€) Arne On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 19:53:17 -0600, "R. W. Rodolico" <rodo(a)dailydata.net> wrote: > Michael, > > The only Rasberry Pi's I've seen only have one NIC in them. Is there a > version with at least two? If it only has one NIC, that means we'd have > to create an alias (eth0:0) and run the firewall off one physical > device, or use some kind of USB ethernet dongle. > > I looked at the Pi and thought, as you mention, it is too low end for > much, though I do think it might make a good home router if it had two > NIC's in it. > > Tell me I'm wrong about the single NIC. I'd love that. But, my vote is > no if it only has one NIC. > > Rod > > On 03/04/2012 08:03 AM, Michael Tremer wrote: >> Hello, >> >> it has been a little bit quite on this list, so I am going to start a >> new conversation about Raspberry Pi, a cheap board with an ARM SoC. >> >> Originally, there has been a request on the forums whether IPFire will >> support this hardware. I would like to pass this question on to the SIG. >> >> On the pro side of the equation: >> >> The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity and is trying to bring small >> PCs to poor countries and people who can not afford any. I'd like to >> support that. >> >> Usable software is still missing, but I guess the major distributions >> will come up with such very soon. However, among them, there is a >> router/firewall distribution missing, and as IPFire is the only Open >> Source firewall which has support for ARM, we should consider to enhance >> this support for the Raspberry Pis as well. We could bring firewalls to >> poorer countries which is quite nice with IPFire: ISPs are planning to >> provide LTE (which works with IPFire) and providing a connection to the >> internet to small networks like in schools. I suppose that is what the >> R-Pi-Foundation is aiming to do. >> >> On the technical side: The hardware should be powerful enough for >> connections to a couple of MBits/s but too weak for powerful services >> like the filtering proxy and the intrusion detection system won't work >> well. >> >> The userland of the ARM port should run without any major modification. >> Maybe we need to make some amendments on tools like the bootloader >> (U-Boot) or others, but we should not expect any trouble there. The left >> thing that is to do is to build a new kernel for that device. It uses a >> Broadcom chipset which is supported by the Linux kernel and does not >> need any patches unless we want to use the GPU. >> >> The contra side: >> >> The Raspberry Pi Foundation apparently messed up the launch. It is not >> possible to get one and a lot of blokes are going to buy the few that >> were already built to create home servers and stuff like that. That's >> bad for us, because we cannot test any created code without the >> hardware. >> >> The hardware is weak. As mentioned earlier, it will work for a lot of >> things, but not all of the features IPFire provides. I consider the >> project rather a toy than a serious piece of computing hardware, so >> supposedly the amount of interest will decrease soon when people realize >> that they cannot really do what they intended to do with the boards in >> the first place. >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> The question now is, if it should take the effort and build a new kernel >> for the Broadcom SoC and support the Raspberry Pi boards. Is somebody >> willing to do this? Has someone already tried something out? Did you try >> to order a board? >> >> Please mail me your thoughts. >> >> Michael >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SIG-ARM mailing list >> SIG-ARM(a)lists.ipfire.org >> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/sig-arm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [SIG-ARM] Has somebody got interest in Raspberry Pi? 2012-03-05 7:52 ` Arne Fitzenreiter @ 2012-03-05 23:17 ` Michael Tremer 2012-04-14 15:08 ` Michael Tremer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Michael Tremer @ 2012-03-05 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: sig-arm [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6232 bytes --] Hello, thank you for joining the discussion. Yes, it is true that there is only one NIC. But I was rather thinking about using the board as a gateway for 3G connections and not for cable or DSL (--> toy). I think the new box from Iomega looks pretty interesting, but it is based on the kinda old Kirkwood architecture by Marvel. I considered using them in the build cluster but it would be much better to save up some money and go with proper powerful hardware like the Pandaboard. Supposedly, we will need about 4 or 5 of them. Back on the Raspberry Pi: I can't really say yes or no. It depends on the amount of work we need to do. If it would be just to compile the kernel, I would say yes. It seems we cannot get the hardware, so no. I was expecting some newcomers this year because Windows 8 is coming up for ARM in 2013 (as is currently believed). It would create more demand for ARM-based desktop hardware and actually there is nothing. Not a single bit. I am planning to attend CeBIT on Friday together with Arne and we'll see if we can get some statements from a couple of vendors. I did not find a lot of them on the exhibitors list and that's why I do not expect a lot of new information either. But feel free to send me names of companies which could possibly be interested. If you like to search for yourself head over here for that: http://www.cebit.de/en/about-the-trade-show/programme/exhibitors-products/search-exhibitors-products Michael On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 07:52 +0000, Arne Fitzenreiter wrote: > Hi Rod, > > you are correct that the Raspberry Pi has only one interface. > You need an additional USB Dongle or has to use VLAN's. (Not > implemented in the > WebIF but the needed tools are present.) > > The onboard nic on the PI is also an USB-Nic (same SMC-Chip as on the > Panda Board) > > I'm testing an Iomega iConnect box (1Ghz Kirkwood, 256MB RAM) > that have also only one onboard lan-nic so i use a usb-lan for red. > This box is cheap to get in Germany at the moment (45€) > > Arne > > > On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 19:53:17 -0600, "R. W. Rodolico" > <rodo(a)dailydata.net> wrote: > > Michael, > > > > The only Rasberry Pi's I've seen only have one NIC in them. Is there a > > version with at least two? If it only has one NIC, that means we'd have > > to create an alias (eth0:0) and run the firewall off one physical > > device, or use some kind of USB ethernet dongle. > > > > I looked at the Pi and thought, as you mention, it is too low end for > > much, though I do think it might make a good home router if it had two > > NIC's in it. > > > > Tell me I'm wrong about the single NIC. I'd love that. But, my vote is > > no if it only has one NIC. > > > > Rod > > > > On 03/04/2012 08:03 AM, Michael Tremer wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> it has been a little bit quite on this list, so I am going to start a > >> new conversation about Raspberry Pi, a cheap board with an ARM SoC. > >> > >> Originally, there has been a request on the forums whether IPFire will > >> support this hardware. I would like to pass this question on to the SIG. > >> > >> On the pro side of the equation: > >> > >> The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity and is trying to bring small > >> PCs to poor countries and people who can not afford any. I'd like to > >> support that. > >> > >> Usable software is still missing, but I guess the major distributions > >> will come up with such very soon. However, among them, there is a > >> router/firewall distribution missing, and as IPFire is the only Open > >> Source firewall which has support for ARM, we should consider to enhance > >> this support for the Raspberry Pis as well. We could bring firewalls to > >> poorer countries which is quite nice with IPFire: ISPs are planning to > >> provide LTE (which works with IPFire) and providing a connection to the > >> internet to small networks like in schools. I suppose that is what the > >> R-Pi-Foundation is aiming to do. > >> > >> On the technical side: The hardware should be powerful enough for > >> connections to a couple of MBits/s but too weak for powerful services > >> like the filtering proxy and the intrusion detection system won't work > >> well. > >> > >> The userland of the ARM port should run without any major modification. > >> Maybe we need to make some amendments on tools like the bootloader > >> (U-Boot) or others, but we should not expect any trouble there. The left > >> thing that is to do is to build a new kernel for that device. It uses a > >> Broadcom chipset which is supported by the Linux kernel and does not > >> need any patches unless we want to use the GPU. > >> > >> The contra side: > >> > >> The Raspberry Pi Foundation apparently messed up the launch. It is not > >> possible to get one and a lot of blokes are going to buy the few that > >> were already built to create home servers and stuff like that. That's > >> bad for us, because we cannot test any created code without the > >> hardware. > >> > >> The hardware is weak. As mentioned earlier, it will work for a lot of > >> things, but not all of the features IPFire provides. I consider the > >> project rather a toy than a serious piece of computing hardware, so > >> supposedly the amount of interest will decrease soon when people realize > >> that they cannot really do what they intended to do with the boards in > >> the first place. > >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> The question now is, if it should take the effort and build a new kernel > >> for the Broadcom SoC and support the Raspberry Pi boards. Is somebody > >> willing to do this? Has someone already tried something out? Did you try > >> to order a board? > >> > >> Please mail me your thoughts. > >> > >> Michael > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> SIG-ARM mailing list > >> SIG-ARM(a)lists.ipfire.org > >> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/sig-arm > > _______________________________________________ > SIG-ARM mailing list > SIG-ARM(a)lists.ipfire.org > http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/sig-arm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [SIG-ARM] Has somebody got interest in Raspberry Pi? 2012-03-05 23:17 ` Michael Tremer @ 2012-04-14 15:08 ` Michael Tremer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Michael Tremer @ 2012-04-14 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: sig-arm [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7029 bytes --] Hey, I felt that there was need to proceed the discussion on the topic. So I wrote a short-ish post on the planet about how I feel about the Raspberry Pi port at the moment: http://planet.ipfire.org/post/the-raspberry-pi-dilemma Please feel free to share thoughts... Michael On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 00:17 +0100, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hello, > > thank you for joining the discussion. > > Yes, it is true that there is only one NIC. But I was rather thinking > about using the board as a gateway for 3G connections and not for cable > or DSL (--> toy). > > I think the new box from Iomega looks pretty interesting, but it is > based on the kinda old Kirkwood architecture by Marvel. I considered > using them in the build cluster but it would be much better to save up > some money and go with proper powerful hardware like the Pandaboard. > Supposedly, we will need about 4 or 5 of them. > > Back on the Raspberry Pi: I can't really say yes or no. It depends on > the amount of work we need to do. If it would be just to compile the > kernel, I would say yes. It seems we cannot get the hardware, so no. > > I was expecting some newcomers this year because Windows 8 is coming up > for ARM in 2013 (as is currently believed). It would create more demand > for ARM-based desktop hardware and actually there is nothing. Not a > single bit. > I am planning to attend CeBIT on Friday together with Arne and we'll see > if we can get some statements from a couple of vendors. I did not find a > lot of them on the exhibitors list and that's why I do not expect a lot > of new information either. But feel free to send me names of companies > which could possibly be interested. If you like to search for yourself > head over here for that: > > http://www.cebit.de/en/about-the-trade-show/programme/exhibitors-products/search-exhibitors-products > > Michael > > On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 07:52 +0000, Arne Fitzenreiter wrote: > > Hi Rod, > > > > you are correct that the Raspberry Pi has only one interface. > > You need an additional USB Dongle or has to use VLAN's. (Not > > implemented in the > > WebIF but the needed tools are present.) > > > > The onboard nic on the PI is also an USB-Nic (same SMC-Chip as on the > > Panda Board) > > > > I'm testing an Iomega iConnect box (1Ghz Kirkwood, 256MB RAM) > > that have also only one onboard lan-nic so i use a usb-lan for red. > > This box is cheap to get in Germany at the moment (45€) > > > > Arne > > > > > > On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 19:53:17 -0600, "R. W. Rodolico" > > <rodo(a)dailydata.net> wrote: > > > Michael, > > > > > > The only Rasberry Pi's I've seen only have one NIC in them. Is there a > > > version with at least two? If it only has one NIC, that means we'd have > > > to create an alias (eth0:0) and run the firewall off one physical > > > device, or use some kind of USB ethernet dongle. > > > > > > I looked at the Pi and thought, as you mention, it is too low end for > > > much, though I do think it might make a good home router if it had two > > > NIC's in it. > > > > > > Tell me I'm wrong about the single NIC. I'd love that. But, my vote is > > > no if it only has one NIC. > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > On 03/04/2012 08:03 AM, Michael Tremer wrote: > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> it has been a little bit quite on this list, so I am going to start a > > >> new conversation about Raspberry Pi, a cheap board with an ARM SoC. > > >> > > >> Originally, there has been a request on the forums whether IPFire will > > >> support this hardware. I would like to pass this question on to the SIG. > > >> > > >> On the pro side of the equation: > > >> > > >> The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity and is trying to bring small > > >> PCs to poor countries and people who can not afford any. I'd like to > > >> support that. > > >> > > >> Usable software is still missing, but I guess the major distributions > > >> will come up with such very soon. However, among them, there is a > > >> router/firewall distribution missing, and as IPFire is the only Open > > >> Source firewall which has support for ARM, we should consider to enhance > > >> this support for the Raspberry Pis as well. We could bring firewalls to > > >> poorer countries which is quite nice with IPFire: ISPs are planning to > > >> provide LTE (which works with IPFire) and providing a connection to the > > >> internet to small networks like in schools. I suppose that is what the > > >> R-Pi-Foundation is aiming to do. > > >> > > >> On the technical side: The hardware should be powerful enough for > > >> connections to a couple of MBits/s but too weak for powerful services > > >> like the filtering proxy and the intrusion detection system won't work > > >> well. > > >> > > >> The userland of the ARM port should run without any major modification. > > >> Maybe we need to make some amendments on tools like the bootloader > > >> (U-Boot) or others, but we should not expect any trouble there. The left > > >> thing that is to do is to build a new kernel for that device. It uses a > > >> Broadcom chipset which is supported by the Linux kernel and does not > > >> need any patches unless we want to use the GPU. > > >> > > >> The contra side: > > >> > > >> The Raspberry Pi Foundation apparently messed up the launch. It is not > > >> possible to get one and a lot of blokes are going to buy the few that > > >> were already built to create home servers and stuff like that. That's > > >> bad for us, because we cannot test any created code without the > > >> hardware. > > >> > > >> The hardware is weak. As mentioned earlier, it will work for a lot of > > >> things, but not all of the features IPFire provides. I consider the > > >> project rather a toy than a serious piece of computing hardware, so > > >> supposedly the amount of interest will decrease soon when people realize > > >> that they cannot really do what they intended to do with the boards in > > >> the first place. > > >> > > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > >> The question now is, if it should take the effort and build a new kernel > > >> for the Broadcom SoC and support the Raspberry Pi boards. Is somebody > > >> willing to do this? Has someone already tried something out? Did you try > > >> to order a board? > > >> > > >> Please mail me your thoughts. > > >> > > >> Michael > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> SIG-ARM mailing list > > >> SIG-ARM(a)lists.ipfire.org > > >> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/sig-arm > > > > _______________________________________________ > > SIG-ARM mailing list > > SIG-ARM(a)lists.ipfire.org > > http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/sig-arm > > _______________________________________________ > SIG-ARM mailing list > SIG-ARM(a)lists.ipfire.org > http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/sig-arm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-04-14 15:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-03-04 14:03 [SIG-ARM] Has somebody got interest in Raspberry Pi? Michael Tremer 2012-03-05 1:53 ` R. W. Rodolico 2012-03-05 7:52 ` Arne Fitzenreiter 2012-03-05 23:17 ` Michael Tremer 2012-04-14 15:08 ` Michael Tremer
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox