<f00b4r0>
rsalvaterra: looks cute, but I'm reading this as another one of these "exploits" that prerequisite physical access to the target device (arguably non-root in the present case, still...) ;P
<rsalvaterra>
Yeah, it's not too practical, but the idea is neat. :)
<dorf>
nation state level practical. think natanz.
<dorf>
ironic that the israelis developed the exploit...
<Strykar>
but I can download it fine in a browser behind the same openwrt router :/
<karlp>
doesn't really sound like a problem with the host hten :)
<Strykar>
I've never seen opkg croak with a download off github, just downloads.openwrt.org - https://bpa.st/XEMA
<karlp>
I'm not convinced that there's any evidence that "just use this other place" will somehow make that magically different.
<karlp>
I've cetainly had no end of problems with sf downloads personally
<Strykar>
well, if my recollection serves, opkg has had many issues downloading from openwrt.org over the years. ye old sf or recently?
<Strykar>
since package Makefiles and issues are being served by GH, I assume it can't hurt to have another hosting provider with a different cdn
Tapper has joined #openwrt-devel
<ldir>
Anyone else seen an incompatibility between the cmake bump & ccache? It tries to pass an unsupported option to ccache and hence thinks the compiler's broken. Might just be a macos thing, or a ccache thing, or cmake thing, either way have fallen into problem and trying stuff to get out :-)
linzst has joined #openwrt-devel
<ldir>
yep, zlib and ccache are unhappy with the cmake bump.
dedeckeh has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<karlp>
is this a cmake bump on macos? from what to what?
victhor has joined #openwrt-devel
<ldir>
no, cmake bump in master
<jow>
cmake and ccache has been a quite painful experience
<jow>
it does this wird compiler_arg1 thing and it is next to impossible to funnel flags through it properly
<jow>
that's why we ended up introducing the ccache_cc and ccache_cxx wrappers so that cmake has only one executable to work with
<jow>
but its chicken/egg and generally brittle, probably broke now in the process
damex has joined #openwrt-devel
nitroshift has quit [Quit: Gone that way --->]
<ldir>
That's fine, I've never really timed how much difference it makes for me anyway and I'd only enabled it a few weeks ago.. no idea how popular or otherwise it is
gch981213499 has joined #openwrt-devel
gch98121349 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
gch981213499 is now known as gch98121349
feriman has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
Albert has joined #openwrt-devel
<Albert>
Regarding qos, there are too many options on openwrt, which one is the best? sqm-script, qos-script or gargoyle-qos
goliath has quit [Quit: SIGSEGV]
<PaulFertser>
Albert: sqm for generic usecases
<dorf>
sqm + piece of cake.
<dorf>
and you want to set your download and upload to about 5% less than your actual achievable values.
<dorf>
make sure it's assigned to your wan, not lan interface.
<karlp>
Strykar: what am I mean tto be reading there?
<karlp>
if you're saying "somethings wrong with curl" then ok, sure, but that's pretty unrelated to "we should move package hosting to sourceforge or github" ?
proc999 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<Strykar>
I didn't suggest move, merely mirror so there's more than once source
<dorf>
mirror from github to sourceforge probably not the best option. mirror from github to gitlab, much better :)
<dorf>
ultimately both could be mirrors of an openwrt-run gitlab instance.
damex has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
damex has joined #openwrt-devel
damex has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
damex has joined #openwrt-devel
muhaha has joined #openwrt-devel
Night-Shade has joined #openwrt-devel
<damex>
f00b4r0: how do you check that it does not hook on lan by default? https://gist.github.com/damex/4d2687c5056569f368d4861b15db9c97 this is the default config i have on mikrotik hex-s that runs last snapshot build. lldpd listen only bridge ('br-lan', which is 'lan' in openwrt configuration)
<f00b4r0>
damex: for you it works. It randomly fails for me. lldpcli show config will typically display only "lo" in interface pattern
<f00b4r0>
at first I thought it was a race with the daemon starting before the lan interface was up, because restarting it manually "fixed" it. But it's not the case, even when restarting sometimes it won't hook.
<f00b4r0>
I'm testing on 19.07 though.
muhaha has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
ivanich has joined #openwrt-devel
<rr123>
jow: is uhttpd-mod-lua's only purpose to speed up lua processing? it does bring in about 2MB RAM usage, luci does not need it either, any other reason to use it? i can do lua cgi just fine without it, as expected
muhaha has joined #openwrt-devel
muhaha has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
jlanda has quit [Quit: jlanda]
jlanda has joined #openwrt-devel
<damex>
any idea if mt7621 could offload ipv6 forwarding/nat?
<damex>
it does offload for v4 just fine (and works well with DSA)
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: enterprise is the worst. Residential broadband and mobile is best.
<stintel>
good times =)
<f00b4r0>
if I enable ipv6 on my link (provided I find the correct parameters to do so, my ISP doesn't advertise), first thing that'll happen is I'll lose reverse DNS.
<f00b4r0>
which has all sorts of "interesting" consequences.
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: IPv6 works out of the box with openwrt defaults on my ISP.
<f00b4r0>
good for you :)
<SwedeMike>
that's how it works on most ISPs
<SwedeMike>
sorry for you having a bad one
<f00b4r0>
*shrug*
<Strykar>
how would I boot an AMD x86 coreboot SoC kernel with iomem=relaxed
<stintel>
Strykar: give it some xanax
<Borromini>
SwedeMike: it's beefier than my connection atm, which is 100/30 :P
<f00b4r0>
lol
<stintel>
sorry, bad joke
<Strykar>
stintel: all I have is some weed sadly
<Borromini>
f00b4r0: what ISP are you with?
<Borromini>
you're in france right?
<f00b4r0>
Borromini: K-net.
<f00b4r0>
aka Kwaoo
<stintel>
Strykar: I believe there is a .config option for it
<stintel>
let me find it
<Strykar>
stintel: so short of recompiling the kernel, I can't?
<Borromini>
f00b4r0: fiber and no ipv6?
<f00b4r0>
~
<f00b4r0>
pretty much yeah
<Borromini>
that sounds weird.
<f00b4r0>
although I can't say it's bothered me much.
<Strykar>
stintel: its CONFIG_IO_STRICT_DEVMEM and CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM
<f00b4r0>
SwedeMike: I'm willing to bet that 90% of these numbers are mobile
<f00b4r0>
all mobile providers have now switched to v6 native, AIUI
<zorun>
no, it's Free and Orange
<f00b4r0>
zorun: ?
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: did you bet without even looking at the link?
<stintel>
Strykar: on x86 you might be able to edit the grub cmdline by interrupting the boot process, if that's an option
<zorun>
Free have been doing ipv6 for ages, and Orange enabled it massively a few years ago
<f00b4r0>
SwedeMike: I looked at the link
<stintel>
zorun: not in Belgium they didn't :(
<Strykar>
stintel: grub on openwrt?
<f00b4r0>
I didn't scroll down, but I see the top names as mobile providers, which tends to confirm
<stintel>
sales folks couldn't even answer my question about Orange+IPv6
<stintel>
Strykar: on x86, yes
<f00b4r0>
zorun: amusingly, Free was late to ipv6 on mobile
<f00b4r0>
SFR seems nowhere to be seen. How unsurprising.
<stintel>
they were more like IPvwhaaaaaat?
<stintel>
good thing my parents told me to join the sales meeting lol
<f00b4r0>
zorun: also, until recently, Free was v6-in-v4, which sucked.
<stintel>
sounded great in theory
<zorun>
f00b4r0: yup, now it's v4-in-v6 ;)
<SwedeMike>
6RD was ok for initial deployment, after a while, no.
<SwedeMike>
zorun: what did they deploy?
<SwedeMike>
for v4-AaaS
<f00b4r0>
4rd
dorf has joined #openwrt-devel
<SwedeMike>
really?
<zorun>
f00b4r0: btw, mobile ipv6 in France is nowhere near the level of fixed access
<f00b4r0>
zorun: ?
<Strykar>
stintel: I see /boot/grub/grub.cfg but opkg does not list a "grub-mkconfig", there's a "grub2-editenv"
<Dagger>
(trivia: Free invented 6rd)
<zorun>
that list gives Orange, Free and Bouygues at the top, it's broadband
<f00b4r0>
it's not
<zorun>
except maybe for bouygues
<f00b4r0>
Bouygues mobile is 100% v6
<stintel>
Strykar: just edit it manually
<f00b4r0>
they've been among the first: they ran out of IPs
<zorun>
did they finally enable it by defualt?
<f00b4r0>
it's been on for ages. Where have you been? ;P
<zorun>
they ran out of
<stintel>
Strykar: everything normally happens during image build (which happens on different hardware)
<zorun>
they ran out of *private
<zorun>
they ran out of *private* IPs ;)
<zorun>
oh, ok, didn't follow, at the beginning it was a manual process
<f00b4r0>
"BOUYGTEL-ISP". Keyword "TEL"
<f00b4r0>
it's the mobile arm
<stintel>
how you know my password?!
<SwedeMike>
comcast initially ran out of RFC1918 space for management of their cable modems, that was their initial driver for IPv6 deployment.. for management.
<f00b4r0>
lol
<f00b4r0>
SwedeMike: yeah usually it ends up biting them in the ass.
<f00b4r0>
Free is using shared v4 nowadays. Which is an abomination
<stintel>
SwedeMike: it was a problem for management but not for deployment?!
<SwedeMike>
doing v4-as-a-service over IPv6 with A+P is the least bad way to do things
<f00b4r0>
I have to confess though, all the talks about "migration" don't make sense to me. You can't have both system coexist and hope that it'll be fine
<SwedeMike>
stintel: they deployed it as well to customers.
<stintel>
SwedeMike: yeah but I mean ... they had more modems than RFC1918 would allow for?
<stintel>
and at the same time it's not a problem for public address space?
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: the end-game will probably be a NAT64 gateway at the corner of the network or something, for residual IPv4 connectivity to laggards
<SwedeMike>
stintel: I don't know their IPv4 situation.
<SwedeMike>
for public IPs
<stintel>
either way I think I've had enough internet for today
<f00b4r0>
i remember reading an article that put in plain words why this whole migration process is doomed. I can't remember if it was written by ESR or some other figure
<SwedeMike>
lots of haters.
<f00b4r0>
it wasn't hate. It was actually a technically sound argument for why a transition will bog the switch down.
<SwedeMike>
did the author have a better suggestion how to do things?
<Hauke>
has anyone seen IPv6 inside bigger companies as the main way to address internal hosts?
<f00b4r0>
i'll see if I can find it back
<f00b4r0>
Hauke: hehe
<f00b4r0>
SwedeMike: istr the bottomline was, ipv6 is stillborn
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: sigh.
<Dagger>
I've yet to see anyone come up with a better suggestion
<SwedeMike>
lots of people with strong opinions on IPv6 that never bothered to deploy it.
<Dagger>
IPv6 supports all of the transition methods that can work... and the ones it doesn't support don't work
swex has quit [Quit: swex]
<SwedeMike>
there is more work to be done, but IPv6 works well today and is deployable by people who want to.
<f00b4r0>
SwedeMike: the fact that it's been 25 years and its still not even past a third of traffic is rather telling, tbh
<Dagger>
it's telling, but what it tells is that people can't handle long-term planning and are scared of change
<Dagger>
it doesn't actually say that the design is wrong
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: it's telling, but telling different things to different people
<f00b4r0>
I'm sure.
<Dagger>
if you can suggest an alternative design that would be easier to deploy, then I'm all ears
<Dagger>
so long as a) it works, b) it's not already a thing you can do in v6
<Hauke>
IPv6 is difefernt to IPv4 and all the things that are needed work with with IPv4, the new features people are not aware of
dedeckeh has joined #openwrt-devel
<SwedeMike>
or they actively don't want them because they modelled their entire operational process on how things work in IPv4
<Hauke>
SwedeMike: yes
csrf- has joined #openwrt-devel
<grift>
ignorance is bliss, should just pull the plug on ipv4
csrf has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<f00b4r0>
i remember a key argument was that ipv6 isn't backward compatible, and ipv4 isn't forward compatible. Which kinda breaks rule #1 of a transition path
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: when did you get into networking? What decade?
<Dagger>
v6 /is/ backwards compatible though
<Dagger>
v4 isn't forwards compatible, but that's not a problem with v6, it's a problem with v4 -- the only way to fix it would be to roll out a replacement protocol for v4, and that's exactly what v6 is
<f00b4r0>
Dagger: it's not. You can't receive a v4 packet on a v6 stack and expect it to work.
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: when I got into networking in the 90ties it was very common to run multiple networking protocols on the same wire
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: it seems to be only people who started in networking after ~2000 who are baffled by running multiple protocols at once
<Dagger>
you can do that. that's what ::ffff:0:0/96 is for
<f00b4r0>
Dagger: host A is v4 only, wants to talk to host B which is v6 only. Doesn't work.
<f00b4r0>
I think I've found the article I had in mind
<Dagger>
you can also connect outwards to v4 addresses, either with ::ffff:0:0/96, NAT64 or dual-stack
<Dagger>
if this is the djb article... -.-
<f00b4r0>
written by one Geoff Huston, Chief Scientist at APNIC
<f00b4r0>
you'd expect him to know what he's talking about.
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: yes, I know him, I've had several conversations with him face to face. He also likes to be alarmist and absolutist to make a point.
<f00b4r0>
I'm not 100% sure it's the piece I remember, but it develops the same arguments
<Dagger>
f00b4r0: okay, that's because v4 doesn't handle longer addresses, which is a problem with v4
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: and I've told him people like you take his statements at face value, takeaway that IPv6 sucks, and never do it.
gch981213499 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
gch981213499 has joined #openwrt-devel
<f00b4r0>
Dagger: the argument was back/forward compat. That's the point.
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: how much IPv6 deployment have you done?
<f00b4r0>
SwedeMike: well, you don't have to convince me. I'm a measly lowlife end user. But I'm afraid he has a good analysis of what's going on.
<Dagger>
f00b4r0: you can work around it with NAT46 or a reverse proxy, or by giving the v6 host a v4 address. all of which v6 supports
<f00b4r0>
Dagger: *sigh*
<f00b4r0>
you fail to see the point.
<Dagger>
well the point I'm trying to make is that v4 isn't forwards compatible with longer addresses, and *nothing can ever fix that*
<f00b4r0>
dual-stack isn't backward compatibility. It's two incompatible systems living side by side.
<Dagger>
v4 not being forwards compatible isn't a design failure on the part of v6. it's a design failure on the part of v4
<f00b4r0>
i don't disagree. I'm saying it might explain why the "transition" isn't working so well.
swex has joined #openwrt-devel
swex has quit [Client Quit]
<grift>
"pull the plug" see how fast the transtion goes
<f00b4r0>
*nod*. If anything, I suspect dual-stack is providing _less_ incentives to move forward
<Dagger>
sure, so that's what the long transition is telling you: that v4 screwed up. if you have any great suggestions for how to fix that then make them, but otherwise let's not use it as an excuse to keep not doing v6
<SwedeMike>
for any ISP deploying IPv6 to residential users, they get more than half the traffic over IPv6 because all the major CDNs running video traffic are IPv6 enabled.
<SwedeMike>
IPv4 was way too forward looking. It should have stayed at 24 bit address or something so it needed to be replaced earlier
<f00b4r0>
heh
<SwedeMike>
it's an experiment that escaped the lab, never designed to run at world scale
<Dagger>
SwedeMike: OTOH that probably would've given us a 64-bit v6 which would probably lead to needing NAT. so this might be better in the long run
<f00b4r0>
SwedeMike: 6rd, which some ISPs were doing here for a while, made things worse imo: by switching to ipv6, the end user ended up with longer hops to reach anything, poor latency, etc
<grift>
"21:22 < SwedeMike> it's an experiment that escaped the lab, never designed to run at world scale"
<f00b4r0>
not to mention basic stuff like reverse dns not working
<grift>
so true for aall kinds of techs
<f00b4r0>
(still the case with most ISPs here, AFAICT)
<Borromini>
:c
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: I gave up on relying on reverse-DNS 20 years ago, what are you using it for?
<grift>
geolocation
<f00b4r0>
SwedeMike: *I* am not using it for much besides aesthetics. But some services do rely on rlookup match to allow incoming connections
<grift>
light bulb at living roon, light buld in kitchen
<f00b4r0>
I run a moderately loaded postfix MTA, and that simple check rids me of 90% spam; for instance.
Ycarus has quit [Quit: Ycarus]
<SwedeMike>
yeah, that's probably one of the very few remaining use-cases, and not applicable to wider IPv4/IPv6 deployment. Anti-spam needs to adapt its reputation system to something better.
<Dagger>
I use it to look up the hostname for a given IP. why is that not a valid use-case? :(
<f00b4r0>
SwedeMike: are you suggesting reverse is entirely unnecessary, at the end of the day?
<SwedeMike>
f00b4r0: I doubt we'll see increased use of it, rather the opposite
<f00b4r0>
I'm afraid you're right ;P
<grift>
change starts with you, demand it
<SwedeMike>
Dagger: because most people do not care about reverse-DNS, and there still isn't generated reverse for IPv6 for residential for instance.
<grift>
theres no "generated" reverse dns for ipv4 in residential areas either AFAIK
<f00b4r0>
grift: ?
<f00b4r0>
all FR ISPs provide a generic v4 reverse. Some even offer custom
<grift>
look i am willing to bet my left nut that this isp doesnt even offer more than one ip address
linzst has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<f00b4r0>
grift: for residential? Of course not
<Hauke>
which 8 port switch is supported by the realtek target?
<grift>
"ofcource" ?
<f00b4r0>
Hauke: zyxel GS1900 iirc
<stintel>
Hauke: there are many ?
<Dagger>
ISP-generated reverse is bleh anyway. the ISP has no idea what my rDNS entries need to be, so they need to delegate the zone to me rather than invent crap
<stintel>
if IPv6 breaks things you need to fix them, not ignore them
<grift>
ip6 isnt awesome -- ip4 has been inadequate for decades
<stintel>
in 20 years, IPv4 will be obsolete technology
<karlp>
this is the other way, everything's fine, they tried turnint it off, and somethign stopped
<karlp>
I suspect their "off switch" isn't actually appropraite.
<grift>
same with DAC , that stuff was invented in labs as well, they didnt foresee this
<karlp>
my colleagues say that v6 will be (and is) the ghetto internet, for people too poor to have a v4 ip...
<karlp>
but I didn't like that view of the world :|
<Borromini>
stintel: proximus broke my brother's ipv6 :P
<stintel>
Borromini: proximus broke me 2nd sim. and I live 2000km away
<grift>
karlp: if our leader make it
<stintel>
grift: pick a new leader
<grift>
thats the this when this tech was academic they academics sold out
<Borromini>
stintel: aren't they lovely :P
<grift>
they basically sold "the company"
<stintel>
Borromini: no they aren't
<Borromini>
hence the smiley ;)
<stintel>
Borromini: spare me the rethorical ;)
<f00b4r0>
completely off topic, but I'm very impressed at JLCPCB's order progress tracking
<grift>
anyway this tech was never designed to be used on suck a scale but it was sold as such nonetheless
<SwedeMike>
karlp: yeah, I'd say quite a few applicatiosn today assume there is basic IPv6 support enabled in the OS and it should only be turned off per interface, not completely
<SwedeMike>
like being able to bind to :: to get all interfaces instead of 127.0.0.1
ivanich has joined #openwrt-devel
<grift>
just to make it clear i am talking about ipv4 here. its the same challenge with many subsystems like also "access control" where a tech was designed to be used in much smaller scale (namelu a few elites) but then it was "sold" and now that tech that was ment to be used by few academic is used by the whole world
gch981213499 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<grift>
and ofcourse that doesnt "fit"
gch981213499 has joined #openwrt-devel
<grift>
why would anyone try to defend that?
<grift>
just tell them like it is, if youre still on ip4 and if youre still relying of DAC (etc) then youre hopelessly living in the past
* stintel
applauds grift
<stintel>
there is no point in defending ipv4. unfortunately roughly half of this world accepts v4 only as an internet connection. we need to change this
<grift>
right raise taxes
<stintel>
if your connection is v4 only, you do not have access to the "entire" internet
<karlp>
just please, remember that collective punishment is NOT the way to go abotu it.
<stintel>
so you shouldn't be paying for that kind of connection
<grift>
and any !@#$% isp telling you that any prefix lower than /48 is reasonable tell them to !@#$ OFF
<grift>
karlp i dont understand
<grift>
its obvious were dealing with intergarten material here
<grift>
its the only way, brute force
<russell-->
ynezz: a few days ago i became aware of this in the context of adding support for bullet-ac: https://github.com/true-systems/ubnt-openwrt-flashing ... did you give any thought to trying to disable the rsa key check in the ubiquiti u-boot?
<grift>
thing with humanity is that one will always try to control one-other, you you have to do this collectively
<karlp>
no, this IT attitude that you can hammer users to make them apply pressure on isp's is batshit crazy, and incredibly arrogant, patronizing and ... just WRONG.
<grift>
isp is just another business
<grift>
its all about profit
<karlp>
we've seen this fail abyssmally with spam black lists
<karlp>
all we've actualyl done is push to more monopolies
<karlp>
while spamhaus strokes their beards and thinks they're making the world a better place
<karlp>
we still have massive chunks of the world with no _real_ alternative ISP
<karlp>
and IT peopel going "urh urh, the free market will provide yuou with a better isp!"
<karlp>
no they won't
<karlp>
it's a joke
<karlp>
collective punishment is WRONG
<grift>
i dont see the connection, just pull the ip4 plug, raise taxes on ip4 address 5000%
<karlp>
in otherwords, exactly what I said earlier, v6 becomes ghetto internet for the poor
<grift>
for the rich you mean
<grift>
well theres more poor than rich anyway so ...
<grift>
eventually the remaining ip4 elites will come to ip6
<Dagger>
v4 will be the ghetto internet for the rich
<Dagger>
which makes no sense, but... nevertheless
<grift>
good
<grift>
i dont see a problem with that
<karlp>
rich people are aleady on v4, they'll stay there, you want to mak ev4 more expensive, so the rich stay there, and no-one else can join them?
<grift>
theyll isolate themselves
<Borromini>
and then disconnect ipv4 from the internet you mean? :P
<Borromini>
make it ipv6 only <3
<grift>
ye send it to marse with elon
<karlp>
you were just earlier saying that it's business?
<Dagger>
I want v6 deployment. I don't care what people do with v4 after that
<grift>
and then we solved the bigger problen
<karlp>
business wants to sell to people with money...
<Dagger>
making v4 expensive seems to encourage people to do v6 deployments
<karlp>
who are demonstrably on v4
<grift>
business doesnt want to sell to people with money, they want profix they want to grow
<grift>
i get 1 ip4 address and i get 64K ip addresses
<karlp>
hey, look as long as we're not doing collective punishment, I'm ok with whatever :)
<grift>
anyone with half a brain (that means 0.01 percent of our population) will that well if i can get 64K ip addresses for the price of 1 then that sounds more attractive
<grift>
point i am trying to make is that the masses need direction
<grift>
they dont want discretion , they cant handle that
dorf has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dorf has joined #openwrt-devel
<grift>
its not punishment either. its just a choice. i think NAT is punishment
<grift>
just pull the plug and everyone will benefit
<Dagger>
64k subnets, presumably. 64k v6 addresses is an abnormally and unjustifiably small allocation
<Dagger>
and yes, NAT is collective punishment, but everybody seems to love the extra effort/cost/breakage that it brings :/
<grift>
right so next thing to do is put jail sentences on anyone claining that /48 is too much
<grift>
every person on earth needs to get atleast /48
<grift>
but dont worry about me, theyre in the process of bringing water to the stock exchange. so by that time youll have other things to worry about
feriman has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<grift>
i remember me 2 decades ago screaming about roof tops that everyone needs atleast 512/512KiB , they pronounced me "nuts" . two decades later (and i still done have a job or income) i am on 100/100Mbits with 64K p6 addresses
<SwedeMike>
grift: at that time I was working for a swedish startup that did ETTH and 10/10 to customers.
<SwedeMike>
was a lot of buzz here around then about that
Floppe has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
feriman has joined #openwrt-devel
dorf has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dorf has joined #openwrt-devel
Floppe has joined #openwrt-devel
dedeckeh has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
slh64 has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
slh64 has joined #openwrt-devel
feriman has quit [Quit: WeeChat 3.0]
gch9812134998 has joined #openwrt-devel
gch981213499 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
gch9812134998 is now known as gch981213499
<mangix>
find staging_dir/target-powerpc_464fp_musl/ -xtype l | wc -l
<mangix>
37
<mangix>
what the hell
ivanich has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
victhor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
samantaz has quit [Remote host closed the connection]