Today I once again returned a router from the other world – his WAN port had burned out and he was generally just throwing. Yes, but not because it was suitable for * WRT firmware, I flashed it and replaced the WAN port to be one of those for LAN, so the procedure itself is generally bean

Does not allow resetting of vlan0ports
nvram set manual_boot_nv=1

Maha port 4(0) from Lan ports
nvram set vlan0ports=”3 2 1 5*”

Port 4 becomes a WAN port
nvram set vlan1ports=”0 5″

Saves changes
nvram commit

Restarts the router

The procedure was tested on Tomato WRT and works 100%, it will be similar for Open WRT and DD-Wrt it has a straight graphical gui tool. In general, the procedure is standard for most routers as long as they support VLAN-and so that different ports can be inserted into different network segments.

Hello, I haven't written for a long time, that I had some heavy ones 5 daily parties 😆 and I almost didn't have time to be in real shape, that I scribble meaningful things 😈 But anyway this is a topic for some next post 😉 For now I will work on looking at the topic of open source firmware for routers (routers). I have mentioned it several times so far dd-wrt as my personal favorite, but less than a week ago our boy gat3way discovered brutal security bug in its software, which made me take some of the other projects more seriously. In particular, I stopped at tomato which was given to me by my friend Joro Filipov.

Switching from one software to another was a hassle straight from the upgrade part, there was no need for additional screws. After installing the “tomatoes” I was impressed by its clean interface. In general, I have always preferred something simple as a design, not something crowded. As a beauty definitely dd-wrt leads and tomato looks like it was created by me – 2-3 colors, but for some it's beautiful 😉 . The other thing that made a big impression on me was the very few possibilities – he misses around 40% from its various server havi and other things that dd-wrt has. However, I give, on the other hand, it works much easier 😉 So the defect can be an effect. It's a pleasant surprise, that tomato comes with described ports for better p2p traffic and with allowed UPnP . It also makes an impression, that tomatoes support slightly higher transfer speeds over a wireless connection, I didn't test it because I don't have much time, but I think there is still something to be optimized. Minus is the support of the small range of devices unlike dd-wrt, tomato works on quite a limited number of devices, I hope this fact will change in the future 😉 Also a minus is quite a complicated filter of traffic limitation (I like it, but some uneducated people will be glazed). Another downside is the lack of overclocking of the router's processor, although I read about spells through the console 😉 . Overall, this is a relatively synthesized and simplified comparative review between the two software, Personally, I like the tomato more, but there are still others like it that I haven't tested 😉