[nos-bbs] TELpac nodes and JNOS

[Rick Williams]

I appreciate the frankness from the group.

The reason that TCP/IP did not happen in our area was a total lack of
interest by hams in doing it. Out of 100+ hams within our general area, we
found only three of us that had the slightest interest. There was no
compelling reason. Even the really techie types who had been doing digital
for decades just did not find it something they wanted to do.

It has been a bit frustrating for me over the years and following the
direction that networking has taken, or taken and then retreated, and yet
after all the technology we have, we still do not have anything that
approximates a good digital emergency communications network via ham radio.

Maybe it is just not possible to do? Especially for longer distances on HF?

Many of you know Walt, K5YFW, and his perspective of having much wider band
OFDM or some other modulation scheme that permits high speed messaging on RF
with extremely low S/N ratios. Something we can not do right now.

He claims that there are a number of people waiting to develop a network but
it must have some basic guidelines developed by an organization such as TAPR
or ARRL, etc. But without a firm idea of what is wanted, they are not
willing to act.

As you all know, it only takes one person, but preferably a few more than
one, to make an enormous impact when it comes to developing a new idea along
these lines. This is evidenced by this group and the accomplishments by some
very talented folks. But to then translate that into something that grows,
it has to serve a need that up to this point has not had that kind of
solution.

Challenge to this group ... even if a bit off topic: If you could develop an
emergency network, how would you do it? Or would you consider it not really
doable and just use a pseudo emergency network such as Winlink 2000 or a
similar system?

Even though NOS is not the way to go for an emergency network, how about
using Linux as a switch such as FPAC as they are doing on VHF in Florida? In
terms of the hidden TX problem, how about something like Flexnet which I
believe uses a DAMA approach.

73,

Rick, KV9U



-----Original Message-----
From: nos-bbs-bounces at lists.tapr.org
[mailto:nos-bbs-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Barry Siegfried
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 13:31
To: TAPR xNOS Mailing List
Subject: Re: RE: [nos-bbs] TELpac nodes and JNOS


[Bill Vodall <wa7nwp at jnos.org> wrote]:

> [Rick Williams <mrfarm at mwt.net> wrote]:
>
> > 1. If xNOS was able to do much of this, and do it some years ago,
> > why did it not succeed in being developed for a large part of
> > amateur radio?
>
> It's a very complicated package and takes a significant effort to keep
> running.  But beyond that, I think a bigger reason is that doesn't
> play nicely with windows.  There are some ways to make NOS work in
> a windows world but nothing really clean and solid.
>
> I like the Airmail program because it is very much what a (limited)
> windows version of what *NOS would be.
>
> Finally, *NOS is still a "specialized" application.  If you want a
> "real" data router -- use Linux.   That, like *NOS, is too complicated
> for many folks.  It's not worth the trouble.

IP and packet switching has always been NOS's strong suit.  In reality,
IP is extremely functional in NOS and is implemented just as efficiently
as it is in Linux.

> For an EOC or similar system server, *NOS in not a good answer.

Agreed.  While it has several "standard" and some "specialized"
servers included that may be compiled in and/or turned on and off at
will, it never did make a good overall "server" because of the memory
needed and required for each user "connection" to its servers.

> Use Linux or a Windows equivalent box.  It used to be that Linux was
> the sole solution for many packet applications but that's pretty much
> changed and you can do about anything packet on Windows these days.

> > 2. Is it primarily because of the overly geek requirements to get
> > it to work?
>
> ... and because Linux is better.

Linux is certainly "geekier" than NOS is in that it is actually more
difficult and complicated to get it working.  It seems that for any
function that exists in both NOS and Linux, it is always more difficult
and complicated to get the Linux version of it working than it is the
NOS version.

As for Linux being "better", it depends on what is important to the
system operator.  If it is more important to utilize lots and lots
of memory to run lots and lots of tasks simultaneously, all on a single
machine, then yes indeed, Linux is "better".  But if simplicity and
ease of use for a smaller number of tasks (some of which may be
highly specialized) which use considerably less memory are more
important, then NOS is actually "better".  It all depends on your
point of view and how much time you are willing to devote to learning
something new.

> > 3. For proper use of an xNOS system, do you need to use the 44 IP
> > address scheme?
>
> IM!HO - the 44 net system is actually a detriment these days to amateur
> packet networking.   Use the 192.168 or 10.x numbers.  If you have an
> active and supported 44 net system in your community, by all means use
> it.  If you don't - I'd suggest just setting it up like a home system
> with NAT to the Internet.

Quite honestly, it doesn't matter what numbers you use for IP addresses
in NOS.  Numbers are just numbers.  The key is whether or not you have
IP routing to those numbers.  The 44-net gateway system is actually
alive and functioning very well, particularly for people who actively
maintain amprnet gateways and who pay attention to them.  Using 44-net
IP addresses also permits home servers behind gateway machines to be
reachable from the rest of the internet if that is your interest.

If you use IP addresses from the private blocks (like 192.168 or 10.x)
on machines behind your gateway or consumer router then you *must* use
NAT on the gateway or consumer router that connects to the internet
because you cannot use client functions on machines behind it any
other way (192.168 and 10.x IP addresses are not routed on the internet)
and you have no home server functionality at all (unless you 'ip
forward' them at your router or home gateway).

What is nice about some NOSs is that some Linux and IP enhancements
(like NAT) have been added to them in order to make them more useful
as home gateways, thereby giving you the best of both worlds, NAT
*and* 44-net, all without having to use Linux or a consumer router.

> > Or can you use DHCP in some way?
>
> *NOS has bootp which is (I think) a precursor to DHCP.  I've been going
> to try it for years.  Fortunately I'm now in an ideal setup where I can
> try it when I get a round TUIT.  There's a Linux box 'Community Packet
> Server' just a mile from this QTH where I can turn on DHCP and tell it
> to respond to the BOOTP requests.

BOOTP is *the* precursor to DHCP but it has really become deprecated
and DHCP has taken over.  Some NOSs have converted their BOOTP clients
to DHCP clients and they work very well in cable and any other broadband
environment where using DHCP is a "must".  To the best of my knowledge,
however, the BOOTP server has not been converted into a DHCP server in
any NOS.  The Linux 'Community Packet Server' (or some other such DHCP
server) is still probably the best solution for dynamically assigning
IP addresses for an amprnet subnet.

> > 4. With slow, e.g.,  less than 9k6 speeds, TCP/IP is not practical
> > and seems to have been one of the main downfalls as to why it never
> > caught on.
>
> 9k6 on a digital repeater works incredibly well.  Not good enough for
> SETI to do the 350K download unassisted, but I was able to download it
> to another server and then FTP it to the local system via the 9k6
> repeater.  For basic communications (email with attachments... argh)
> it works great.
>
> 1200 baud TCP/IP is good enough for basic email and things like Jabber
> IM.

Time and time again AX.25 "purists" blamed TCP/IP for their networking
problems when really all along the problems were right at level 1.  A
hidden terminal will *always* get you, no matter what.  Networking
together packet radios more intelligently on point-to-point links
and digital repeaters (regardless of speed) helped to solve many of
these networking problems.

> > 5. What is the main problem with running this stuff on the MS
> > Windows platform as a Windows program?
>
> For the "old" *NOS, the compiler used doesn't really know how to
> talk to Windows networking.

Also... NOS works on a DOS, native Linux or DOS EMU on Linux platform
and likes to talk directly to its hardware which was difficult to do
in Windows systems early on.  OS/2 used to be (and still is) a very
"DOS-friendly" platform and with it you can easily segregate hardware
for use with multiple instances of NOS running in multiple OS/2-DOS
windows.  In fact, this here message is being written in a DOS window
on an OS/2 machine that contains two other DOS windows, each of which
has a NOS program running in them.  Obviously, the two NOS programs
have different purposes and different functions running in them.

> > And for that matter, when running on Linux, why could not a GUI
> > interface be developed, perhaps similar to AirMail to handle much
> > of the complicated stuff and keep it away from non technical people?
>
> There is no need.  NOS is essentially a router, not an application.

NOS is actually and primarily an IP router with AX.25 support and
several specific applications included, if desired.  :)

> We have incredible GUI applications already - Firefox, Thunderbird,
> Jabber, etc.  They can all work through and with *NOS.

And they all work well through and with *NOS.  :)  If a GUI interface
were to be developed for NOS to handle the "complicated" stuff and keep
it away from {non-technical} people, then how would anybody learn
anything about anything?

Then again, I'm one of those people who feel the internet was ruined
by lowest common denominator thinking, but I'm nobody so that opinion
doesn't matter and it serves no useful purpose.  It is what it is.

> A webmin interface for NOS on Linux would be a big step forward, but
> first we need one for basic AX.25 packet on Linux.

I don't even know what a "webmin" interface is, unless you are speaking
of a minimal HTTP client browser (since NOS already has a minimal HTTP
server application available in it).  If that's the case, I think I'd
rather stick with Firefox.  :)

> > Rick, KV9U
>
> Bill - WA7NWP

73, de Barry, K2MF >>
           o
          <|>      Barry Siegfried
+---------/-\---------------------------+
| Internet | bgs at mfnos.net              |
| HomePage | http://www.mfnos.net/~bgs  |
+----------+----------------------------+
| Amprnet  | k2mf at nnj.k2mf.ampr.org     |
| PBBS     | k2mf at k2ge.#cnj.nj.usa.noam |
+----------+----------------------------+

_______________________________________________
nos-bbs mailing list
nos-bbs at lists.tapr.org
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nos-bbs

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/42 - Release Date: 7/6/2005

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/42 - Release Date: 7/6/2005