[VOTE] OpenWrt Two

[David Woodhouse]

On Mon, 2025-02-17 at 22:58 +0900, Sungbo Eo wrote:
> On 2025-02-13 03:44, John Crispin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > starting a [VOTE] to get approval allowing me to begin the development
> > of OpenWrt "Two".
> > 
> > "Two" will have all of the features that "One" has with the following
> > upgrades.
> > 
> > * MT7988
> > * 10G SFP
> > * 5G copper
> > * 4 port 2.5G copper
> > * 1-2 port 1G copper
> > * Tri-band Wi-Fi 7
> > 
> > "Two" will be produced by GL.iNet and we are exploring options for US/EU
> > based distribution.
> > 
> > "Two" will (hopefully) be in the 250$ region with yet again a portion of
> > that being donated to the project.
> > 
> > expected availability is late '25.

And still PoE? On which port?

I'm just starting to play with the OpenWrt One that's been sitting on
my desk for a while. I'm trying to understand why anyone would get PoE
on the *WAN* port, if that's coming for their ISP's fibre/VDSL dongle.
Seems like that port is always just going to be a single wire to
whatever the uplink is.

Seems to me like I'd always want PoE to come from the internal network
on the *LAN* side, surely? 

Which is fine on the One, as I can just use the 2.5G/PoE port as the
internal one, connect the VDSL dongle to the 1G port, and wonder why
the box and default configuration have them mislabelled.

But on the Two, it's going to matter more. I'd really want the PoE to
be on one of the four 2.5G ports attached to the switch, and *not* the
single port. Otherwise there's going to be a lot more software bridging
than necessary...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5069 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/attachments/20251009/b6c837a3/attachment-0001.p7s>