| |
SM7UZI > BPQ 12.08.99 07:24l 133 Lines 6474 Bytes #-9927 (0) @ EU
BID : SM7UZI6378
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: SM7UZI - please give it a rest
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0AIS<DB0MW<DK0MNL<DB0CEL<DB0EWB<DB0RDB<
DB0IL<OZ5BBS<OZ4PAC<OZ4BBS<OZ4BOX<OZ7PAC<OZ3PAC<OZ6BBS<SK7IQ
Sent: 990812/0043Z @:SK7IQ.MALMOE.M.SWE.EU #:46623 [Malmö] $:SM7UZI6378 FBB7.00
From: SM7UZI@SK7IQ.MALMOE.M.SWE.EU
To : BPQ@EU
Hello!
sm3lks wrote:
>How come what ?
>That I don't think it is obsolete? (read the text again please)
I have read it but, I don't understand how you came to that conclusion.
>That it does the job ? (Correct configuration makes it possible)
I say it doesn't do the job as good as some other nodes would do!
You can never get a configuration that makes bpq or any other old net/rom node
as god as a modern node like x-net or flexnet.
Much have happen since the days when bpq was written!
Tha bpq does work as good as bpq are there no doubt about.
But there are no reason not to use somthing better than bpq, there are lots of
better softwares avaliable.
Once was bpq as good as other nodes, but it was a long time ago.
I don't think there are any reason for having a packet network is working bad,
compared to how it could be.
If packet radio shall survive for much longer must something be done to
make packet radio more interesting also for future hams.
A more reliable network with higher speeds, a better working routing etc
and that is not possible when using bpq and similair nodes.
I don't say that only changeing nodes would solve every problem, but some.
There will soon be noone inserested in a stoneage packet network!
>>If it is the bpq net/rom are you talking about are you wrong!
>>It is very obsolte, it isn't a bit good in any way.
>>The worst kind routing that can be used, it is very bad working, and should
>>never be used.
>>The problem with bpq is that it isn't doing a good job!
>
>What, exactly, is your problem whith BPQ that you don't have with other
>NetRom-versions that follows the original NetRom-standard.
I woule have more or less the same problems with all nodes following the
original net/rom standard I guess, except those the packet driver is causing.
I have most experiance of bpq networks, it is by using bpq I have noticed thes
problems mentioned before.
I don't think that replcaing bpq with another out dated net/rom node would
make very much good, there are better nodes to use.
The "original net/rom" is crap, tha is why for example thenetnode uses an
improved version of net/rom, flexnet uses its own protocol etc.
There are good resons for replacing net/rom!
Probably is the driver part of bpq that isn't very good, less good than the
one of other net/rom nodes avalaibel for linux etc, but it is of no interest to
discuss that.
>The job BPQ does, is the same as any NetRom-node.
More or less.
But bpq is the net/rom node used here, so it is bpq that should be raplaced.
>(The transportlayer, etc.. is the same.)
Yes net/rom is net/rom, the same hugh amount overhead data.
The same worthless quality measurement, the same to seldom updated routing
information etc, the same bad routing.
Why do you compare to other old net/rom nodes?
If there should be any change of node software should it be to a
modern node, not some other out dated node.
Bpq is the most used net/rom node around.
>I have understood that it is BPQ and KISS you have a problem with.
>Or was it because BPQ uses KISS ?
I have problems with the routing in the bpq network, it doesn't work as a
node network should!
The routing is for me more or less impossible to use, you can't connect nodes
very far away using the routing of bpq.
But bpq atleast have a way to get around the routing, that isn't possible when
using every bad working net/rom node.
The bad working packet driver part of bpq results in that the
links with its already limited speed of 1k2 bpq isn't used in the best
possible way. And when using kiss is it even worse.
By using adaptive parameters would you get an increased throught
put, that is what they are there for.
>You keep saying that BPQ uses a bad packetdriver.
>Do you mean KISS ?
No, the part of bpq that handles the ax25 communication, not net/rom.
>If so, please don't say that BPQ is bad, it can use other modes than KISS.
No, not only it is bacuse it don't have adaptive parameters and no packet
sammler, as every good packet driver have.
Bpq also uses kiss that makes it even worse!
The packet sammler is a function that many old packet drivers have but not bpq.
>>The reason for why bpq is used isn't becasue it is good!
>WHY isn't it good ?
Bpq isn't good compared to any modern node like flexnet or x-net.
The original net/rom routing used by bpq isn't at all as good as the routing
of the above mentioned nodes.
Bpq also uses kiss, and a not very good a pcket driver, that is rather
worthles compared to the packet driver of for example flexnet.
>>It is no standard one are forced follow, but it is maybe that people thinks so
>>that is the problem.
>>
>How about the "standard" you tries to force us to use ? (FlexNet)
I don't force you to use flexnet, but it would be nice if you wanted to use
flexnet.
It seems to me that since flexnet is the easiest node to set up etc would
be the one that is most suitable for every node.
The everage node operator, which seems to know very little about packet radio,
nodes, parameters etc could also set up a good working flexnet node without
problems, while hes lack of knowledge would reults in misconfiguration when
setting up a node that is harder to configure.
That would be one of the major advantages of using flexnet.
Miconfigured bpq nodes is common, but that problem would be history.
Flexnet is also avalialbe as rmnc/flexnet, which is very good for unnatended
nodes as replace ment of tnc2 based x1j nodes etc.
But there are other good nodes, take a look at x-met.
There are tnc3 and tnc4 verison of x-net.
Also thenetnode is better than bpq and also that is avalible for tnc3, but to
me flexnet and x-net seems better.
All those three nodes can communicate with each other, networks of them can be
linked together etc.
.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://zap.to/sm7uzi/
o==|=====-
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
