I still don't get why no commercial hardware vendor offers products specifically designed for this software. OSS router software for home seems to be far superior then all the proprietary stuff that's out there.
Back on topic, what hardware are people with these sort of speeds running? It seems most consumer routers usually top out around 500mbit for NATing. I’m currnetly using a Mikrotik Hex with RouterOS, but prefer OpenWRT/LEDE.
However, most home level routers usually rely on (proprietary) hardware traffic offload which is why the code doesn't float back upstream.
I will not buy a router if I can't flash OpenWRT on it. It's a requirement for me now.
If it has wireless then you enter a minefield of regulatory and approvals pain. I suspect that under the current fcc rules you can't sell hardware that isn't locked to its firmware (because if you did users would be able to freeband).
There already exist some products that pretty much meet the requirement so the niche for pure play OSS is even smaller than you might imagine. e.g. Mikrotik sells a huge line of products running Linux under the hood. If you are familiar with kernel networking you can easily work with their CLI and UI. Very low cost. Does everything Linux does and is fcc approved.
One you get beyond super-low cost (e.g. into 10G NICs and wire-speed 1G routing) customers expect stuff to work, and with an OSS kernel plonked onto someone else's hardware it probably won't 100% work. This again constrains the niche within which pure OSS is viable.
You absolutely can and most companies do not lock their firmware. There are companies that commercially sell routers with DD-WRT and other OSS firmwares by default, like Buffalo. http://www.buffalotech.com/news/dd-wrt-nxt-routers
End users are expected to adhere to FCC rules even if they have the technical ability to violate them.
The FCC rules changed ~two years ago, you aren't allowed to sell devices capable of violating FCC rules. The original rule just banned third party firmware, but after some outrage it was changed so that the easiest way to comply was blocking third party firmware. They clearly wanted to ban them altogether, wouldn't be surprised if they were working on it right now
Yes, under the revised rules [1] manufacturers are required to ensure certain changes can't be made, such as disabling DFS and using non-standard channels. And as I said, the FCC explicitly does not ban third party firmware. The biggest reason is that it's cheaper to make adjustments to the radio chips to prevent certain changes than it is to swear to the FCC no one can hack in new firmware.
And as I stated and you quoted, users are still required to follow FCC rules. You can't hook up an external signal amp to boost transmit power past legal levels, use unapproved channels, etc, even if they find bypasses for the protections required by the FCC. You can't use a signal booster for a TV antenna that causes interference. You can't boost power on your CB radio. Etc.
[1] https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=zXtrctoj6zH7o...
Their original proposal for the revised rules specifically banned third party firmware, mentioning DD-WRT by name, and the revised version decided not to ban it.
The rule also doesn't hold the company liable if someone manages to hack a third party firmware onto the device. Before selling it,you need an approved application showing either a chip unable to break the rules, or a way of preventing unauthorized code from running on the device. If the FCC approves the application and you've implemented it, you aren't at fault if a workaround is discovered. This makes locking the firmware a cheaper than producing two models or selling a limited model elsewhere.
To me, it seems like they wanted a hard ban on the firmwares, settled for a soft ban, and will likely revisit the issue when there's some political capital justifying a hard ban.