Default IP Address on All Distributions

Franky Van Liedekerke liedekef at
Thu Dec 18 23:31:14 CET 2008

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:16:32 -0500
Joel Newkirk <freerunner at> wrote:

> I disagree - I've been a vocal proponent for many months of "tidying
> up" networking, including setting IP and subnet to something less
> likely to lead to conflicts.  Yes, I agree that the vast majority of
> people using a FreeRunner as I type this are quite capable of
> performing the changes you mention in under 2 minutes, but I also
> believe that most would be quite happy if they were not required to
> do so every time they flash their FR.  I personally use
>, with host machine (gateway from FR of course) set
> to .201, solely because that lets me set a static config on hosts to
> which I tether my FR and always reach even a fresh flashed image,
> with minimal disruption accessing other networks. (we have over 50
> subnets at work, including, that I need to access
> 24/7)  But I'd be wholeheartedly in support of a change to a less
> conflict-ridden subnet as the default, or at least a change of
> default to /30.
> "We've" not standardized on any set of IPs, and "finally" isn't even
> apropo since the IP has been the de facto standard
> at least back to OM 2007.2.  And whether I am alone in not being
> "happy with it" or not, I like to believe I know how to use my
> system, being a veteran linux network/server admin for a broadband
> provider.
> Taking a broader and longer view of things, the goal of Openmoko
> surely is a smartphone that can be sold to general consumers, not
> just linux hackers, and as such it's entirely sensible to establish
> defaults that will cause the least degree of inconvenience to owners
> as possible.  (and in some opinions - including my own, after
> answering countless hundreds of phone calls from broadband users who
> don't even know what an IP address /IS/ - necessary)  And the earlier
> that change is made the better for the long term: the more
> FreeRunners there are in the wild, the more people there are who will
> be affected at the point of changeover, and the more likely they are
> to be less linux-networking-savvy than the average community member
> today.  
> I think an eventual goal may be to have a USB networking config GUI
> and include that in initial setup steps for new owners or following a
> complete reflash, but until then (and as default entry from that
> point onward) I agree with establishing a default USBnet config that
> is less likely to cause the user any extra effort.
> Make the default network config as maintenance-free and
> interference-free as possible, and any linux hackers who want it more
> convoluted can surely take the 60 seconds they'd need to complicate
> it.  :)
> j

I couldn't agree more. I have a D-Link at home, that uses by default
192.168/16 as network, so I have to change my freerunner as well after
each reflash. And I'd like to believe I'm not the only one owning a
small router (for those curious: my D-Link doesn't allow me to change
my network range, so I need to change my freerunnner)
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:50:14 -0800, "Sargun Dhillon"
> <xbmodder+openmoko at> wrote:
> > Most Linux users, or most users that this device is aimed at are
> > intelligent enough to do a
> > "ip addr add dev usb0"
> > "ip route add dev usb0"

not quite complete ... you need to set IP forwarding on the linux box,
change the netmask and the default route on FR and change
the /etc/resolv.conf file as well, otherwise no "opkg update" or alike.
I *know* people like free DNS servers, but most ISP's block access to
any other dns server in the world but their own, so ...

So I vote for a less used range as well.


More information about the community mailing list