[nos-bbs] SSID issue detail

[kd7nm]

>Seems like good advise Bob.
>THANKS! (topic expansion that does not require response
follows)...

And what if I want to?  <grin>

>>On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 11:45 -0700, kd7nm wrote: 
>>Hi Skip,
>>
>>What you're talking about here are two different issues.

>Actually it runs deeper than jnos and two issues, but jnos
is probably destined to >become a greater portion of the
software mix. 
 
I wish I had enough depth of expertise in the RACES group
I'm a member of, that I could think of deploying xNOS for
automatic email handling.  While not a user currently, I was
a very early adopter of Johann's code, after using Phil's
NET and NOS code.

>>SSID's were developed as a means, within the AX.25
protocol,
>>of supporting one ham having more than one station
operating
>>on the same frequency and LAN at the same time.

>Yes - I get the "one-licensee" mentality that we are
breaking here.  And I'd like to >resolve it without using
the thought of "go ahead with anything because it is an
>emergency' so anything goes".  I also see how messy
carrying the SSID everywhere can >get...

Besides, you have to train with whatever you hope to have
folks ready to deploy, so coming up with an ID scheme that's
legal to use while you're training and drilling with it is
absolutely necessary.  Using one call is absolutely OK from
the context of club operations.  And if you use the method
of sending a separate ID packet, using that club call, shown
as being sent from the tactical ID, anyone who cares enough
to be watching the channel for 10 minutes when the station
is in use, will see the relationship between the tactical ID
and the amateur callsign sponsoring the station.  

>>Convers extracts the callsign from the connection to use
as
>>a method of identifying a user.  Converse wasn't designed
to
>>sensibly interpret more than one connection under the same
>>call, since it's a relatively rare circumstance that one
ham
>>will end up connecting via more than one TNC to the same
>>convers network.  

>Yes - and this seems to apply for other services as well. 
Mail for example...  Now >response mail ends up at a central
mail queue and not at the station with the SSID. 
>However, if memory serves, convers servers
>can be told that a particular connection should use a
>different nickname.  That might be a way to handle multiple
>sites with a common base callsign.

>HMMM 

>>Another way to deal with the problem is to use tactical
>>callsigns in the "ax25 mycall" setting that uniquely
>>identify each workstation, something like CTYEOC and
FIRE12,
>>then set up appropriate ID beacons, that contain the legal
>>ID text (the host amateur callsign) that is transmitted
>>every 9.9 minutes that the station is in use transmitting
>>packets using that tactical callsign.  Not sure if JNOS
>>knows how to do that, but it's probably worthy of
>>consideration as an addition to the program, if not.

>I like this thought - it seems to be a nice fit to our
deployment planning.  If it >meets legal tests and software
restraints, we could train users on this model.  We have
>been developing toward a model using mailto:
title at workstation without having all the >questions
resolved...

The legality issues are long since resolved - in a sideways
way to this discussion.  It's become the standard way for
amateurs that cross the U.S. border with Canada (either way)
to be able to legally ID their stations as portable or
mobile, such as "KD7NM/VE7" when I'm in Canada.  I do this
periodically while staffing a bicycle ride that goes onto
Vancouver Island, for my APRS station.  The limit of 6
characters with only letters and numbers, that is the
definition of the AX.25 protocol, has its weak points.  Most
stand-alone TNC's support an "HDLC ID" command - something
that, if it's enabled, gets triggered per the US ID rules,
every 9.5 minutes, that the transmitter has been activated
within that window.  Basicly following the same rules as the
(hopefully deceased) Morse ID capability that was built into
the early TNC's.


73, Bob, KD7NM