Technology

42605 readers

556 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

US bans any new consumer-grade routers not made in America (www.theregister.com)

submitted 6 days ago by Powderhorn@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Citing national security fears, America is effectively banning any new consumer-grade network routers made abroad.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has updated its Covered List to include all foreign-made consumer routers, prohibiting the approval of any new models.

For clarification, the FCC says this change does not prevent the import, sale, or use of any existing models that the agency previously authorized.

That Covered List details equipment and services covered by Section 2 of The Secure Networks Act, which, by their inclusion, are deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to US national security.

According to the FCC, this move follows a determination by a "White House-convened Executive Branch interagency body with appropriate national security expertise," in line with President Trump's National Security Strategy that the US must not be dependent on any other country for core components necessary to the nation's defense or economy.

Its determination was that foreign-produced routers introduce a supply chain vulnerability which could disrupt critical infrastructure and national defense, and pose a severe cybersecurity risk that could harm Americans.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] compostgoblin@piefed.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Noooo, FCC, this isn’t a router, it’s just a computer with 6 network interfaces

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Afaik, you'd want hardware acceleration for the actual packet routing, or it'll be quite slow/inefficient. So any ASIC for routing packets would be considered a "router".

I wonder if there exists an open router design based on an FPGA platform...

[–] magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Tell that to the poweredge r210 ii in my closet running PFsense with its CPU barely getting touched despite four NICS, two of them 10gbps.

You're thinking of switching hardware.

That being said I might go hit up mikrotik while I still can for switches. Shame cuz I was hoping to wait until they got PoE versions of the CRS310-8G+2S+IN, but I think they wanna get rid of the crusty old stock of CRS112-8P-4S-IN. They made a similiar newer switch but it only runs swos instead of router is which is bunk.

Ubiquiti stuff can still be flashed with openwrt so I'm good on APs I think once my dlink dies, even if it'll be overpriced.

Worst case I just buy em like I do my FPV flight controllers: from Ali Express

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Interesting, yeah I'm not actually well versed, that's why i began with "afaik" hah. My experience with EdgeRouter is that you basically have to enable hw offloading to get the full throughput, and my assumption was that probably all off-the-shelf routers are doing something similar for them to be usable in such a small/cheap/lower-power box.

When you say I might be thinking of "switching hardware", I assume you're referring to "managed switching", and isn't that just routing without any NAT? Like, if your pfsense router has 4 NICs, then it has to do the job of both a router and switch, no? First one, then the other for each packet?

[–] magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Doing routing/firewall in software is a lot more flexible, and easier to patch when vulnerabilities come out. Especially when software is integral to the routing (looking at you wireguard/openvpn).

Keep in mind those edgerouters look like they have dual core embedded MIPS CPUs.

My dell power edge is a full blown rack-mount server that could run a small plex instance. You could stick a 1060 in this thing and get Witcher 3 to play at a reasonable framerate.

That's what makes up for the lack of dedicated asics.

As for the four NICs they are as follows:

1gb - wan (to modem)
1gb - config (to config vlan on switch)
10gbps - main lan trunk to LAN switch
10gbps - trunk line to public server VM host (DMZ'd from rest of lan, each VM has its own vlan/subnet/firewall ruleset)

They don't act as a switch because it handles packets, not frames, allowing/dropping/denying them based on rules set in software.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 days ago

Man, just when I think I understand home networking...