| |
SM3LKS > BPQ 29.01.99 05:23l 392 Lines 15195 Bytes #-10127 (0) @ WW
BID : 29427_SM3LKS
Read: DH6BB SP6VXT DB1RAS GUEST
Subj: Re: bpq vs flexnet
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0BOX<DB0MAK<OK0PKL<OK0PPR<SP6KBL<DB0GRL<
SR6DJG<SR3BWX<SR9DIP<SR9ZAA<PP5BLU<PY2GN<PY1LCZ<7M3TJZ<OZ8PAC<OZ4PAC<
OZ4BBS<OZ4BOX<OZ7PAC<OZ3PAC<OZ6BBS<SK7CY<SK6FV<SK6YW<SK6BA<SK6LK<
SM7FEJ<SK7HR<SK7GC<SK5AS<SK5BN<SK5UM<SK5AE<SK5BB<SK4HC<SM4UMY<SK4KS<
SK4WV<SM4TYA<SM3ESS<SK3BG<SK3UB<SK3JR<SM3LKS
Sent: 990120/2219Z @:SM3LKS.Z.SWE.EU #:29427 [Ostersund] FBB7.00g $:29427_SM3LK
From: SM3LKS@SM3LKS.Z.SWE.EU
To : BPQ@WW
SM7UZI wrote:
>>SM7UZI wrote in a message:
>>You still haven't told us WHAT the reason is to use FlexNet.
>It is not my duty to tell you anything!
>Be happy about that you have the opportunity to get information that you
>don't have the ability to collect by your self.
Please keep quiet then.
Why tell us anything at all if it isn't your duty to tell us anything ?
All the information you has given us is "abandon BPQ, FlexNet is better".
Real information, with facts, is collectable from the developers
web-pages. (And I have the opportunity to collect the information that way)
>If you are interest reading the other bulletin I have written about what is
>better with flexnet, x-net and thenetnode.
>Others have also written interesting bulletins that are worth reading, both
>to flex and bpq.
>
>But I guess you really aren't, just another conservative packet user who don't
>have much knowledge about packet radio and what can be done to make it better.
>Who wants everything to be as it used to be, your kind will be the death of
>packet radio.
Guess again.....
I'm not conservative, and I have actually much knowledge what packet is,
and what can be done do improve it.
I have both technichal knowledge, practical knowledge, experimental knowledge
and theoretical knowledge. I think I know what packet is....
>>Just that you say it is good software doesn't make it better than BPQ.
>>Some FACTS please.
>What is better with bpq than with flexnet?
I have never said bpq is better than another node-software.
Just replying to FlexNet-fans to correct them then they are wrong about
something regarding BPQ or KISS, and asking questions to clarify their
statements.
>>WHAT makes FlexNet a better choice than BPQ.
>Here is of some things that is better with flexnet than with bpq.
>
>Read this interesting articles about flexnet from P.E.S.T:
>http://mail.texoma.net/~n5pvl/flexdir.htm
>
>This is an introduction to flexnet:
>http://www.neosoft.com/~hezorn/
>
>The packet driver:
>It uses adaptive parameters and packet collector, which increases the
>capability of link rather much.
>It also makes it easy to set up, that is it build up by modules makes it even
>easier. It is just to load the wanted modules in a backfire.
>It uses a real time protocol called 6pack instead of kiss.
KISS is still no protocol...
I don't think 6PACK is any protocol either, it is a host-mode that user
AX25 as a protocol.
>It have support for many hardware, which is good since it now a days is
>meaningless to use a nc for low speed packet.
>A uscc card with modems and a separate computer works as good, often even
>better. At is still developed.
You can use high-speed-TNC's with BPQ, just connect it to the computer.
>The node:
>It uses a protocol also called flexnet that is better than the net/rom protocol
>used by bpq. Not that much iver head data, flexnet uses header compression.
>The routing works and is based on round trip time, not on a strange quality
>measurement like in bpq that makes bpq to route wrong.
>The path with shortest rtt is the fastest.
>The network information is updated very often which makes the routing better.
>In bpq is it updated very seldom, and the information bpq uses to decide how
>route is old and, packets are not routed the fastest way. All packets is routed
>the over the same link, which becomes overloaded.
This is a setup-problem in BPQ, and other nodes.
You can tell the node to use another route instead of the one choosen by
the node.
Network-updates can be done as often you like.
You are clearly talking about a network there a node has a LOT of
neighbours. In this situation I can see the advantage, but not in a system
where it is a significant distance between nodes, and you have a
"high-way" to transport packets over. (This is the reality in many areas.)
>The Flexnet node supports dama, can be used as dama master and slave.
>
>There also exists a special node hardware called rmnc, which is used with
>flexnet software.
>It is cheap and very good for unattended operation, but also in other cases.
>It is build by modules, modems cards etc. So it is suitable both for high
>speed and low speed packet, you can choose processor speed etc. That is
>multitasking is very good makes it good for many ports and highspeed packet.
>Other hardwares capable of running as node like tnc3 are for highspeed use
>only and very expensive.
In my experience, a computer-node is not suitable for an unattended node.
If the computer hangs for some reason, you must restart it manually.
The choice of TheNet in a TNC2, or clone, is fool-proof.
You can use what speed you like, 0 bps to 64Kbps, just replace the
modem in the TNC.
>>(I will not say that you make things up, but sometimes when I read your
>>"arguments" I wonder...)
>What exactly are lies?
>I maybe also will find some lies among the bullshit you load the packet
>network with.
>You aren't really providing us with very much new useful information!
>You should read some of the other bulletins about this subject.
As I said, I am not saying that you make things up, or lie.
What bullshit am I loading the network with ?
I have never said that I am providing any information.
Just correcting errors about BPQ and KISS, and asking questions.
I have read ALL bulletins in this subject.
It is mainly you on the FlexNet-side, and a lot of others that are making
various kind of statements and asking questions.
>>Please excuse me, but KISS has a standard.
>Who have standardised it?
K3MC, Mike Chepponis and KA9Q, Phil Karn invented KISS in 1987.
KISS works this way:
You create the AX25-frame in the application, with headers and all.
This makes it possible to use other protocols than AX25 if you like.
The application sends a <FEND>, 0xC0, to flush any residue in the TNC-buffer.
It then sends the frame, and then another <FEND> to tell the TNC that it
should send the buffer-content as HDLC-frames.
If the character 0xC0, <FEND> should exist in the frame-data, it is converted to
<FESC> <TFEND>, 0xDB 0xDC.
If the character 0xDB, <FESC> should exist in the frame-data, it is converted to
<FESC> <TFESC>, 0xDB 0xDD.
Frames sent FROM the TNC to the application is made the same way.
The only parameters you set in the TNC is parameters that you can't
control in software, like TXDELAY and TXTAIL...
>>Extended KISS, and other versions, is attempts to improve standard KISS,
>>but I haven't seen a standard there yet.
>>
>>But the original KISS has a standard. And it is an easy understood standard.
>Kiss is an old worthless protocol.
It is NOT, and has NEVER been a protocol.
It is old, but not worthless.
>It's main purpose is to turn your expensive tnc in to a modem
>that you could have bought much cheaper and then don't let the packet driver
>used to even control it.
It is a modem with a HDLC-driver.
It makes a cheap TNC emulate any expensive TNC you like, as the protocol
is in the computer-software.
Why use an expensive modem when you can do it all with a cheaper one ?
>>To really use the standard is perhaps not that easy, as you must fully
>>understand the packet-protocol you want to use.
>Keep it simple stupid!
You said it. Why use more complex things than you have to ?
>Most people prefer a good not easy understandable good protocol, than a
>worthless easy to understandable one.
KISS is still not a protocol.
>The reson for why kiss is so widely used isn't because it is the best available.
Why is it used then ?
>>Why do you think anyone are trying to get rid of KISS when they are trying
>>to improve it ?
>They are not!
>Different host modes, hdlc , protocols like 6pack and other protocols have
>been created to be used instead of kiss.
Original KISS sends the packet-frame to the application as soon it recieved
a valid frame.
The improvement in BPQ-KISS is that the TNC is pulled for data, and you can
have channel-numbers so you can use more than one TNC/KISS-port.
Otherwise it is the same.
KISS is still no protocol.
Host-modes is no protocols, it uses TNC's with pre-installed AX25-software.
HDLC is no protocol, it is a techique to modulate the packet-frame.
>>Please tell us why you think "kiss isn't very good".
>
>Here is some text about that from
>http://www.ife.ee.ethz.ch/~sailer/ham/6pack.pdf
>by Matthias Welwarsky, DG2FEF @ DB0KLN.DEU.EU,
>If you are interested read the whole document.
<snip..> Comparison KISS vs 6PACK deleted.
I fail to see how the comparison can be made.
The comparison is between a hostmode-protocol, and a method to let the
packet-protocol reside in software.
All the drawbacks that KISS is suffering of, according to the person doing
the comparison, is easily corrected if you program the application
the correct way.
If you make an application that emulates 6PACK in software, you kan use
KISS as an interface to the radio. The behavior will be EXACLY as is the
original 6PACK.
>>Perhaps you doesn't know what KISS really is ?
>No probably not.
>
>>KISS is good, if you fully understand what it is.
>What is better with kiss than with 6pack?
As you can't compare the two things, I can't answer that.
But I hope I have managed to tell you what KISS is, and what you can do
with it.
All negative things said about KISS, is really the lack of
proper working applications that uses KISS.
Blame the software, not KISS.
<snip..>
>>KISS was developed to make it possible to develop and test new
>>packet-protocols, not just ax25. exp
>Things have changed since than, other better ways to use a tnc have been
>discovered.
Like using it as a brickin a brick-wall ?
What else can you do with a TNC beside as a link between the user and the
radio ?
<snip..>
>>With KISS you have transferred the packet-protocol to the computer-software.
>But not the full control of the modem used!
Yes you have, you can attach whatever modem you like to a KISS-TNC, or
SCC-card using a KISS-driver.
If you have more than one modem, you have one KISS-port for each of them.
(BPQ-KISS can use multiple KISS-TNC's/port)
A modem is the thing that converts the HDLC-frame to the proper modulation
sent to the radio, nothing else.
>>This is often the reason why programmers thinks that KISS is difficult
>>to use, as they must implement the packet-protocol completely in software.
>It is since they must also make a packet driver to use it.
>But to use one that already exsists and just add suport for its interface
>is much more easy, at least is flexnet rather easy to use.
They don't have to think about the packet-protocol.
They are using a simple solution, letting others take the blame if something
doesn't work in the transport-layer.
"The driver doesn't do what my application tells it to do..."
>>The only thing a KISS-TNC does is to take care of the transport-layer,
>>the rest is software in the computer.
>You are using the tnc as if it was nothing but a modem, which the computer
>can't control.
You doesn't have to control a modem as it just is a modulator/demodulator.
The software is controlling HOW it is used.
>>This is the reason why the KISS-TNC has only a few parameters to set.
>>The majority of the parameters is set in the computer-software.
>>Some programmers, sadly to say, doesn't let the user set all of these
>>parameters. (If they implemented the parameters at all)
>To let the packet driver handle all parameters, like in the case of flexnet
>is to prefer.
Parameters set in the KISS-TNC is controlled by the application, sent as
escape-codes. Parameters not in the KISS-TNC is maintained directly by the
application
<snip..>
>>In an other message SM7UZI wrote:
>>>>>Bpq still contains bugs.
>>>>Please explain the bugs.
>>>Some times then you try to connect the bbs is you connected to the node for
>>>some strange reason.
>>What version has this bug?
>the last, 4.08a.
I use 4.08a, and I have never notised this "bug".
What operatingsystem was used ? (DOS, Windows, OS2 ?)
Was BPQ properly configuerd to use 2 calls ?
Not using the same ALIAS on both ports ?
etc...
<snip..>
>>Why use the alias-call in your connect ?
>>Doesn't the nodes have REAL calls that you can use ?
>To avoid being missrouted by the worthless routing of bpq, is there only
>thing to do, to use the node alias with ssid as callsing.
>C 2 alias-2, any ssid from 0-15 works.
>If you use the callsign doesn't bpq care about the port specfied.
>
>How do you manage to get around that for many major problem?
You are makeing a Level2-connect that way.
If you must do that to reach a node directly, that node must be contantly
going up and down, messing up the routing-lists.
This is corrected by locking the route to a specific port, and neighbour.
>><Nit-pick-mode on>
>> If you as a user, in Sweden, connects to a node by an alias you are
>> violating the national amateur radio-regulations.
>That is not true!
>No, when calling for a station can you use whatever name you want.
>But when the stations are connected must its callsigns be used,
>so it must answer with a callsign.
Please tell me where I can find that change in the regulations.
If you are right, I'm sorry...
If you, as a user, connects to a node using its ALIAS, it replies with the
ALIAS, not the call-sign. The nodes call-sign is never in any frame in
that session.
>>In the address-field of the ax25-packet it MUST be a real call, not an
>>alias.
>And that doesn't bpq.
I fail to see what you mean with that reply.
I don't see what BPQ has to do with that it must be a real call in the
address-field.
>> My recepy is: Never use alias in a connect-sequence.
>That doesn't help much!
Yes, if the configuration is correct.
>> You really don't need to use the alias at all, at any time.
>You have to, since bpq's routing is worthless!
>You often want to connect the best way, for example direct to
>your neighbour and not via three other nodes.
This indicates a few things:
1. Too many nodes in the same area, on the same frequency.
2. Badly configured nodes.
3. Nodes that keeps going up and down, messing up the routing.
A node just have to be up for a second, and the routing is there for
a long time. Nodes shouldn't go up and down.
If a node has a poor path, and you get the same phenomena as i reason 3,
you should lock that route as "no-route".
>> Just because you can do it doesn't make it legal.
>> Lack of knowledge is no excuse to break any law or regulation.
>> (It may be a reason WHY someone does it, but no excuse)
>> Other countries may have other regulations.
>That doesn't make the routing less a problem, rather the opposite!
Routing-problem can be solved by proper configurations.
TheNet, the TNC-version, and BPQ has never been PLUG-N-PRAY.
You have to configure it manually to make it work optimal.
A lot of node-sysops doesn't do that, ant you doesn't get an optimal network.
Badly conigured nodes is not any reason to violate any regulation or law.
>Every one is probably aware of the rules
>No but I don' think that we shall turn of every net/rom node because of that.
>Use the flexnet node it doesn't use any aliases, since it is not net/rom.
>
>I don't know any country where you don't have to answer with your call.
73 de SM3LKS
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
