| |
SM7UZI > BPQ 03.08.99 01:56l 261 Lines 13388 Bytes #-9938 (0) @ WW
BID : SM7UZI6243
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Re: BPQ in General
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0BOX<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0GR<DB0BLO<DB0TEM<DB0HGW<
OZ3BBS<OZ3BOS<OZ3PAC<OZ6BBS<SK7WX<SK7IQ
Sent: 990802/2005Z @:SK7IQ.MALMOE.M.SWE.EU #:44942 [Malmö] $:SM7UZI6243 FBB7.00
From: SM7UZI@SK7IQ.MALMOE.M.SWE.EU
To : BPQ@WW
Hello!
>Yes but with BPQ and Fbb you don't have to use portcalls.
You don't need that with flenxet if you want to connect a sation that is in
the mh list or node list.
Unlike bpq you don't have to know on what port the station you want to connect
is.
But if you want to send for example unproto to mail must you use a port call.
How does bpq know to which port you want to send your unproto calls then, you
must use some sort of port number?
>I never said that BPQ did things flexnet could not, it's just that BPQ does it
>much easier in one package. With flexnet you have to run flexdigi on another
>machine for a node is that progress???
No, you can shoehorn it all in the same computer, but if you don't have a
system fast enough, use hgih speeds etc will it not work as good as to use two
computers.
It is often better to use two old comptuers, and there for what is recommended
in the cocumentation, a 386 and 486 comptuers are ther alots of to use for
packet.
>In my setup I don't need a lot of routing tables or entries as I am part of a
>Rose network, the main use of the node is to link to sections of the network
>at present so that users can have keyboard contacts, mail forwarding is
>automatic. I don't need any other system. The fixed parameters in BPQ may
>not be the best option but it works well enough here with as many as 6
>forwarding links going at once. Flexnet did not perform any better when I
>ran it as there are no other stations with adaptable parameters in the
>network.
The adaptive parameters are very usefull, especially on user ports, where the
number of station change from time to time.
It works even better if both sides use flexnet, but it makes difference.
Also the "frame sammler" feature that bpq for some strange reason lack makes a
big difference if the links are not perfectly good.
You links must be very good if there never are any need for parameter changes.
And you never got any chance to use of the routing of flexnet either!
>Well I don't NEED to run a node it's just that with BPQ I can and do as it
>offers another service to the local users that they wouldn't otherwise have,
>so I run the node as well as the BBS and it works very well on the 486DX2 66
>machine I run it on.
Here is the routing of bpq often so bad that you could be with out the node
function of bpq.
If you want to run a node to offer your users tha service, then don't run bpq.
But I'm aware of that as long as every one else uses bpq etc, will the routing
not be better. But someone has to begin.
>>>Also as others have said flexnet requires many separate peices of
>>>software to acheive what bpq does with one.
>>That is good so you don't have to laod support for hardware you don't have.
>That is probably the only argument in favour of flexnet.
No flexnets adaptive parameters and "frame sammler" feature are functions
that affects the speed on the user port very much.
It affects good links with a constant nubmer of station less ofcourse, but it
will never work less good.
If your users use adaptive parameters them selves or if they are clever enough
and to knows anything about packet, so they asjust the parameters manually
willit make a even bigger diference.
The adaptive parameters also makes flexnet very easy to setup and makes it
impossible for all those node operator who don't know mcuh about parameters to
misconfigure the node, bad configuration is a major problem with bpq.
That the routing of flexnet (you have to have more than one node) is working
very good, not like bpqs, it updates its network information often, have a good
routing protocol with header compression, never uses the routing protocol when
connecting only a neighbour etc, all that makes the network much more user
friendly. It also use the links avaliable in the most effective way, sicne the
routing information is updated often.
It is not like with bpq that you get misrouted and have to connect manually
via alot of nodes. The protocol adds much overhead data and since most users
don't know how to get around the routing when they are misrouted is the
network often impossible to use for them.
Also the mh routing and the station search option and that you can connect to
any node in the network as of you where only connecting via a l2 digipeater is
very good for the users.
That you can use the flexnet node as dama master is also very good.
Flexnet is much more userfriendly than bpq, and a flexnet network is definitly
to rpefer.
A bpq network can never be better than a flexnet network, the net/rom overhead
and, seldom updated routing information will always make it less good!
That you can let for example 9k6 and 1k2 users share user freq can also be
good some times.
That 6pack is used instead of kiss, as what makes it possible to use the
adaptiva parameters and dama, if it wasn't for 6pack could you never use
flexnet with any tnc.
That flexnet doesn't give any favour to stations using "agressive paramters"
are good for most users especially weak staions, it treats every one equal,
that is a very god reason for using flexnet.
That you "set up" links to your neighbour nodes (not with fixed parameters like
in bpq) prevent nodes that are popping up and disappearing form being in the
node list. Noone can have a node which they turn of and on, that disturbs the
routing any more.
And the way flexnet connects via the network (the non L3 way) makes that you
never have any connections to nodes that are not reachable any more.
There is one suituation when flexnet should not be used, that is when using
300bps packet, then doesn't the adaptiva parameters work good at all!
The reasons not for using bpq is mainly the bad working routing and the lack of
adaptiva parameters.
>>That can you do with flexnet also.
>
>Perhaps you can but it was not redily obvious to me during the setup of
>flexnet.
Maybe so, there seems to be some things that you have missed.
>>For baycom modes is bpq no good at all!
>>Uee flxnet, tfx, or tfpcx instead!
>It might not be the BEST way to do it but it sure works OK and that is what
>matters to the user.
For your users would flexnet or another packet driver with the "frame sammler"
and adaptive parameters be better.
The adaptive parameters does this in favour of the users:
Maxframes are 7 when the conditions are good and less when it
not is so good.
Maxframes automatically drops to 1 when a rej frame is recived, so that no
unecessary frames is sent.
The packet delay time is lower when a user is alone on the channel than there
are many users.
Thanks to the "frame sammler" are not as many unnecessary frames are sent
when packets are lost, that function really makes a difference.
All good packet driver have had that one for very long now, but not bpq!
>Well that is an admission isn't it, BPQ is small and compact!!!
>I would think that is a big plus in todays world where so much software is
>known as bloatware because it takes so much space and memory.
Bpq is small adn compact, but also badworking, using kiss and the least good
pcaket driver avalaible.
It is small anc compact bacuse it was written in a days when comptuers could
not hanlde more sophisticated nodes, so you could not expect much else from bpq
could you?
But bpq isn't much smaller than flexnet, none of them uses more
than the first meg of dos mem! For flexnet should at lest a 386 be used.
That is not the case with bpq but bpq lacks so very many iomportatn functions
so they are hardly comparable, the price pay for that bpq is "small and
compact" very high.
Bpq could be used on slower computers, but what is the big deal!
The computers used for packet today can handle a much better nodes, so why use
bpq?
Maybe are many node operators are very stingy, how would I know why they
think it is worth it.
>Yes it would ne nice to see a version of BPQ with adaptive parameters but
>untill all the stations in ones area are using adaptive paramters it does not
>offer much improvement.
It does on user ports, and also the "frame samler" does.
If you read the whislist of bpq4.08 is that mentioned, so if there had been
any later version should it have been with adaptiva parameters.
But if that should work good for every one must it be a version than not is
using kiss.
It could maybe use flexnet dirvers, like x-net or thenetnode.
But the problem with bpq is still the routing, the routing must be fixed if
bpq shall ever be usefull and comparable with any modern node.
And a modern verison of bpq would certainly not be a software for old slow
8088 etc, and no "singel package" as you called any more.
If it should be any good would it be rather similair to other modern nodes.
But would anybody use a modern version of bpq?
Don't think so, they would use your argument and stay with the old worthless
verison!
>>So that bpq can be shoehorned in with a bbs (not always with good result the
>>bpq node often get slow) is possible thanks to that bpq lack of many important
>>features. The prise you pay fo only using one comptuer is high when using
>>bpq, it is not worth it.
>Well as I have said before I don't have any problem with the setup here it
>may not be a huge system but it runs well and runs reliably.
Not as good as it could be and a node network isn't only a question of your
system!
>>If you only want to use one computer, give up the node thing then and run your
>>bbs and packet driver, but no worthless node!
>Fine for you to say but why should I do that when it works just fine, when
>some other system that works better comes along I will use it.
If you don't want a node can you use tfpcx2.73, which have at least
the "frame sammler" function and is a better packet driver than bpq.
It is also as reliable.
>For now I don't consider flexnet better just different.
It is different and but also better!
>>The packet driver part of bpq is not good that either, uses kiss etc.
>Well it works very well with the DRSI cards and USCC4 card that I run.
Yes better than with kiss of course, but there are something that causes
protocol errors now and then.
The lack of adpativte parameters and "frame sammler" and that it have no
advantages over other apcket drivers makes it the worst choise.
Bpq is not more reliable than other packet drivers and don't have any
advantages over them, most users seems to use bpq only becasue they do not
because it is better than any thing else.
>I have had a look but BPQ does what I want....end of story for now!!!
But are you aware of what the other nodes an packet driver could do even
better?
Bpq works in some way, no one is questioning that!
But how good is it relly and is bpqs routing what you want from a node?
>BUT th is does not mean I am a one eyed fanatic like SM7UZI, I will liik at
>all new software,
Nice but it doesn't seem to help very much you, should maybe take a closer
look!
Take a look at bpqs routing compared to other nodes routing, what the
difference between the protcols are and how that will affect the speed etc of
network.
How the networks are seen from the users point of view, how user friendly
the node is and how adaptive parameter affect the speed on user the ports.
And how the different nodes are to maintain, configure and other differences.
You seems to be even more fanatic, but in the opposite direction.
How did you manage to come to the conclusion that bpq is the best for
you and your users?
>I am witing for the new AGW 2000 version and the DLL to go
>with it to run FBB 32 bit as it seems to offer a good alternative to BPQ,
It does, it also has adpative parameters and so on. But the use of kiss is a
pity, at least to use 6pack should be possible and its performance under win95
isn't as good as flexnet, but the nwe verison will maybe be better.
It works fine most time anyway.
But agw is no node, and windows is not any good for unatended systems a packet
network with windows nodes would not be very reliable!
Linux is to prefer when it comes to reliability and computers required etc,
hope that linux and dos (what ever dos) will the the operating system used for
packet radio systems in the future, not bill gates windows.
Every one who have used windows must realise that windows is no good.
But for example to run a node on a dos computer and winfbb on another
computer should work fine. The bbs may chrash and hang now and then, but the
node is still working.
>though now
>I read that John is working on a 32 bit version of BPQ so we
>shall have to wait and see what that brings.
That will not change much will it?
Even if it will be the best node software ever seen will it not be used!
Do you know for what operating systems it will be avaliable?
.a&$a. .a&$a. .a&$$$$$$$$$$&a. .a&$a. Anders Lageras
$$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$$$' `$$$$$$ $$$$$$ Lund Sweden JO65PQ
$' `$$ $$$$$$ `ý$$$$$s,s$$$$$ý $$$$$$ AARS Member No. 81
$s,s$$ $$$$$$ a$$$$$$ý $$' `$ Packet:
73 de SM7-$$$$$$ $$$$$$ a$$$$$$ý $$s,s$ SM7UZI@SK7IQ.MALMOE.M.SWE.EU
$$$$$$ $$' `$ a$$$$$$ý $$$$$$ E-mail: sm7uzi@qsl.net
$$$$$$a$$s,s$ a$$$' `$$$$$$&a. $$$$$$ ICQ#: 5161379
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$s,s$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$ Homepage:
`ý&$$$$$$$$ý' `ý&$$$$$$$$$$$ý' `ý&$ý' http://www.visitweb.com/uzi/
o==|=====-
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
