[nos-bbs] mbox fbb 2 errors with FBB

Sat Apr 9 16:58:34 EDT 2016

On 04/09/2016 08:25 PM, Michael Fox - N6MEF wrote:
> Hi Gus,
>
> A couple of details are being lost.
>
> 1)  Which protocol?
> The F6FBB website lists there levels of FBB protocol.  http://www.f6fbb.org/protocole.html
> Which one of those three do you mean when you say, "'N 1' parameter should be the ONLY F6FBB pure protocol"?

All the tree parts/levels are F6FBB protocol, so the question
can't be replied properly.

The fact that the last protocol fully implemented on the
FBB software by F6FBB is the so called B1F, which is
dated about 1998, if I correct remember, on the DOS
FBB-5.14D, we could assume that saying *pure* FBB
protocol we can indicate only that.

The B2F protocol has been only implemented in a
few softwares and NOT YET implemented on the
current xdfbb versions.

So the N 1 switch can ONLY FORCE the current
protocol implementation and so the B1F.

The following second question/exposition  has
nothing to do with as stated above. Furthermore,
we can't relate each other different incommensurable
and dissimilar values :)

gus

>
>
> 2)  Outbound is different from Inbound.
>  From what I observe with FBB connecting with three different "N" values, the "N" parameter on FBB seems to control only the OUTBOUND behavior of FBB.  That is the SID that FBB displays when connecting outbound changes, depending on the "N" value.  And the type of forwarding that FBB performs when connecting outbound also changes, depending on the "N" value.
>
> Therefore, I produced a JNOS log showing FBB(N 1) connecting *TO* JNOS(mbox fbb 2) and forwarding traffic from FBB *TO* JNOS.  The JNOS log clearly showed no compression.
>
> But, if I read your email correctly, you showed (below) the opposite direction.  In other words, you showed a JNOS log of JNOS(mbox fbb 3) connecting to FBB(N 1?).  That's not the same thing.
>
> So, for an apples-to-apples comparison, can you show the same thing I did?
> Specifically, the JNOS log showing:
> -- FBB(N 1) station connecting to JNOS(mbox fbb 2 or 3) (JNOS log begins with "login")
> -- At least one inbound proposal is accepted by JNOS and FBB forwards at least 1 message TO JNOS.
> And a trace showing:
> -- The SID that JNOS and FBB used when connecting.
>
> That should help clarify what you're seeing vs. what I'm seeing.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
> N6MEF
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nos-bbs [mailto:nos-bbs-bounces at tapr.org] On Behalf Of 'Gustavo
>> Ponza'
>> Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 1:01 AM
>> To: TAPR xNOS Mailing List <nos-bbs at tapr.org>
>> Subject: Re: [nos-bbs] mbox fbb 2 errors with FBB
>>
>> Yes, Maiko you are right.
>>
>> 'N 1' parameter should be the ONLY F6FBB pure protocol.
>>
>> Other MODES featuring the (x)FBB software have nothing
>> to do with the F6FBB PROTOCOL!
>>
>> REPEAT: the JNOS2 *without any switch* setup inside the
>> 'autoexec.nos' and I want to intend:
>>
>> #mbox fbb 0
>> #mbox nob2f <callsign> # not more needed as of JNOS-2.0j.4
>>
>> and by using the *AX.25 connection mode* functions OK
>> (i.e. 100%) with all the major and diffused systems, by using
>> the *batched and the compressed* FBB forwarding.
>> The ONLY lack should be the RESUME mode but this is another
>> thing.
>>
>>   From years, here, the incoming versions of obcm PBBS forward
>> correctly, in the above way, with all the JNOS2 versions and so
>> without any errors and in two way forwarding modes.
>>
>> For what concerns the *TELNET mode* connection: my JNOS2,
>> current version, is forwarding with a xdfbb-708b ('N 1' setup)
>> and with a TNOS-2.30 by using the *batched and the compressed*
>> FBB forwarding. The obcm and some other versions of FBB may or
>> may not function.
>> Naturally the B2F mode implemented on JNOS2 is OK in all cases!
>>
>> gus
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> XDFBB-7.0.8b and TNOS-2.30:
>>
>> 00:12:13  44.135.83.21:6300 - MBOX (ve3cgg) connected
>> 00:12:13  44.135.48.40:telnet - MBOX (ve2har) connected
>> 00:12:13  174.46.122.124:8772 - MBOX (wl2k) connected
>> 00:12:14  44.135.83.21:6300 - MBOX (ve3cgg) forwarding
>> 00:12:14  44.135.48.40:telnet - MBOX (ve2har) forwarding
>> 00:12:14  44.135.48.40:telnet - MBOX (ve2har) proposal FA B CX2SA WW
>> SWPC 41911-CX2SA 4764
>> 00:12:15  44.135.83.21:6300 - MBOX (ve3cgg) fwd exit
>> 00:12:15  174.46.122.124:8772 - MBOX (wl2k) forwarding
>> 00:12:15  44.135.48.40:telnet - MBOX (ve2har) got response FS +
>> 00:12:15  44.135.48.40:telnet - MBOX (ve2har) lzhuf compress 931/4467 =
>> 79 percent
>> 00:12:15  174.46.122.124:8772 - MBOX (wl2k) fwd exit
>> 00:12:17  44.135.48.40:telnet - MBOX (ve2har) $41911-cx2sa sent
>> 00:12:17  44.135.48.40:telnet - MBOX (ve2har) fwd exit
>>
>> TNOS-2.30:
>>
>> 01:55:24  44.135.48.45:1072 - MBOX (ve2har) login
>> 01:55:24  44.135.48.45:1072 - MBOX (ve2har) open
>> 01:55:24  44.135.48.45:1072 - MBOX (ve2har) forwarding
>> 01:55:24  44.135.48.45:1072 - MBOX (ve2har) incoming proposal FA B CX2SA
>> ARL KEP ARLK027 3986
>> 01:55:24  44.135.48.45:1072 - MBOX (ve2har) incoming proposal FA B CX2SA
>> WW SWPC 41913-CX2SA 3131
>> 01:55:24  44.135.48.45:1072 - MBOX (ve2har) already have ARLK027
>> 01:55:24  44.135.48.45:1072 - MBOX (ve2har) already have 41913-CX2SA
>> 01:55:24  44.135.48.45:1072 - MBOX (ve2har) our response FS --
>> 01:55:24  44.135.48.45:1072 - MBOX (ve2har) exit
>>
>> OBCM:
>>
>> 00:27:37  I0OJJ-9 on port xnet - MBOX (i0ojj) open
>> 00:27:39  I0OJJ-9 on port xnet - MBOX (i0ojj) forwarding
>> 00:27:39  I0OJJ-9 on port xnet - MBOX (i0ojj) incoming proposal FA B
>> CX2SA WW SWPC 41913-CX2SA 2449
>> 00:27:39  I0OJJ-9 on port xnet - MBOX (i0ojj) our response FS +
>> 00:27:41  I0OJJ-9 on port xnet - MBOX (i0ojj) lzhuf uncompress 1243/2477
>> = 49 percent
>> 00:27:41  I0OJJ-9 on port xnet - MBOX (i0ojj) 41913-CX2SA received
>> 00:27:44  I0OJJ-9 on port xnet - MBOX (i0ojj) exit
>>
>>
>> On 04/09/2016 01:40 AM, Maiko Langelaar wrote:
>>> What ???
>>>
>>> As far as I know, N=1 will still let you do compression, the
>>> documentation says allow FBB forwarding (it does not say you
>>> can not do compression).
>>>
>>> The FBB+BIN (N=2) is something different (that's what I observed
>>> when I was trying to get things to work a year or more ago). That
>>> is why the recommendation of N=1 came up in the first place.
>>>
>>> GUS ? help me on this please, I'm sure you would have told me
>>> if the compression was not happening.
>>>
>>> I'm away from the internet for a while, so take your time replying.
>>>
>>> Maiko
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nos-bbs mailing list
>>> nos-bbs at tapr.org
>>> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/nos-bbs
>> _______________________________________________
>> nos-bbs mailing list
>> nos-bbs at tapr.org
>> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/nos-bbs
> _______________________________________________
> nos-bbs mailing list
> nos-bbs at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/nos-bbs