[OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] TR-069 for OpenWrt

[Drasko DRASKOVIC]

Hi Karl,

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Karl Palsson <karlp at tweak.net.au> wrote:
>
> David Lang <david at lang.hm> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2016, Delbar Jos wrote:
>>
>> > We are conscious of the fact that together with the proposals made by Felix,
>> > Luka and Wojtek we are now looking at many "competing" proposals. As a next
>> > step, we recommend to organize a workshop, at a practical location and time,
>> > where we put everything on the table and define the most appropriate path
>> > forward to the benefit of OpenWrt as a whole.
>>
>> nothing wrong with supporting many different remote management
>> daemons.
>>
>> > TR-069 is a complicated remote management system and in order to make this
>> > initiative a success, we must ensure that the complexity is handled in an
>> > elegant way and with respect for OpenWrt's core architecture. More than on the
>> > protocol itself, we believe that we should focus on the architectural
>> > enhancements required to support remote management in general.
>>
>> What is it that you think is needed to "support remote
>> management in general"?
>>
>> It's worth pointing out that many people are remotely managing
>> OpenWRT devices, Ansible/Salt/Puppet/Chef/etc are all common
>> tools for the job.
>
> Really?  python, python, ruby, ruby.  None of those are really fun enjoyable tasks on _my_ openwrt/leded devices.
>
>> now, those are all tools aimed at managing Linux Servers, not
>> networking gear, but OpenWRT is a server.
>>
>> So I'd suggest starting off by creating a daemon that talks
>> <your protocol> and just stores the stuff it's sent in some
>> simple files so that it can return the info when queried.
>
> Did you read the intro to Delbar's mail, describing that they
> already have a complete tr069 project, for managing openwrt
> devices, that they want to open source, and want to collaborate
> on making it more useful for all, and perhaps see if there are
> common pain points that can be resolved by handling things
> differently on the lede/openwrt side, rather than working around
> on the tr069 side?
>
> I think it's exciting and I'd love to hear more about it.
> ansible/salt/puppet/chef have been far too heavy to run, and
> openvpn servers granting remote shell access is far too tedious
> for daily use.

I am very interested to see TR-069 solution. IMHO what is really
useful in it is Amendment 5, NAT traversal based on XMMP. Both AllJoyn
and Iotivity seem to push this approach to managing CPEs - naturally,
it has been proven and widely used. For the reference, here is an
interesting discussion I had with Thiago Macieira from Iotivity:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/2015-October/002867.html

However, I would personally look more at OMA LwM2M - it would be much
lighter and more fun to implement ;). NAT traversal is not so
straightforward, but it would be interesting to investigate it. Then
clients will be ultra-light.

BR,
Drasko
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel