OpenWRT One Released: First Router Designed Specifically for OpenWrt

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Hardware Design & Performance

  • Many like the concept and price but criticize the port layout: only 1×1GbE + 1×2.5GbE.
  • Explanation: the MediaTek MT7981B SoC appears to support only one 2.5G lane and one 1G MAC plus USB3; USB3 isn’t exposed so you can’t easily add another 2.5G port.
  • Some see this as a dealbreaker for >1 Gbps WAN or multi‑gig LAN; others say most home WAN links are ≤1 Gbps and extra ports belong on a separate switch anyway.
  • Posted test numbers show near‑line‑rate NAT (incl. PPPoE), ~500+ Mbps WireGuard, and good Wi‑Fi throughput at ~5 W power draw.
  • Battery‑backed RTC is praised for keeping accurate time and HTTPS working during WAN outages.

Wi‑Fi Features, Expansion & Blobs

  • Wi‑Fi 6 only (no 6E/7) disappoints some, especially enthusiasts already eyeing Wi‑Fi 7 modules.
  • There is an M.2 slot (PCIe 2.0 x1) for extra radios or other expansions.
  • Some users don’t want any Wi‑Fi in the router, preferring PoE‑powered APs; others see this box as a good OpenWrt‑based AP candidate.
  • It’s noted that the Wi‑Fi chip and boot preloader rely on binary blobs. This clashes with marketing rhetoric about being “fully open,” and sparks debate over whether full openness is even possible under FCC rules.

Role in the OpenWrt Ecosystem

  • Several participants emphasize this is the first official, first‑party OpenWrt device: designed with and blessed by OpenWrt devs, sold to fund the project, and meant as a known‑good reference platform.
  • A long subthread disputes the claim “first router designed specifically for OpenWrt,” citing earlier Linksys WRT and Turris‑style devices marketed for OpenWrt or OpenWrt‑derived firmware.
  • Disagreement centers on what “stock/mainline OpenWrt” means and whether vendor‑modified images count.

Comparisons & Alternatives

  • GL.iNet Flint 2 is frequently cited as a more polished, similar‑class alternative: 2×2.5GbE, stronger CPU, good OpenWrt support, but issues around proprietary SDKs, GPL compliance, and dated OEM OpenWrt forks.
  • Others mention BPI‑R3/R4, Mikrotik, TP‑Link ER605, x86 mini‑PCs with OPNsense, and Raspberry Pi 4 with USB Ethernet as alternatives depending on needs.

Desire for Open Switches & Higher‑End Gear

  • Some argue more OpenWrt‑compatible L3/managed switches (especially multi‑gig) are more urgently needed than yet another router.
  • Existing 2.5G/10G switch options are mostly proprietary; a few run customized OpenWrt forks, but there’s demand for quiet, efficient, fully open alternatives.