[nos-bbs] how does 'NETROM Reach' sound ?

Maiko Langelaar maiko at pcs.mb.ca
Thu Aug 16 11:35:13 EDT 2018

Morning to all,

Just thinking outloud, trying not to take this stuff too seriously :)

Sounds kinda cool from a marketing point of view I guess ...

Back in 2014 I wrote some code that would go through the entire
netrom routing table and try to determine what was reachable, those
that could not be connected to would be marked as unreachable and
no longer be displayed to any users.

I kinda forgot about it for a while, then got interested again.

The latest train of thought would be to extend the reachable check
for ANY incoming nodes broadcast as well, but then take it one a
step further, so after 'N' incoming nodes broadcasts if any nodes
were in fact still not reachable, then don't check them anymore for
a period of time 'Y and just mark them deleted (and therefore not
available to connect to, and not showing up in the nodes table).

Where N and Y could be configurable in autoexec.nos, but if not
be assigned some default values.

There is a similar L3RTT (specific to Xnet and Flexnet ???) system but
that has nothing to do with NETROM actually, and it only is to confirm
direct neighbours being INP 'compliant' or something along that line ?

This idea is all within the standard NETROM code or framework, but how
much traffic should we 'tolerate', and I'm just wondering if this is 
just going
to turn into yet another gadget or way to deal with netrom nodes which
are never able to get too ? Do we dare run this stuff on RF ports ?

Another thought has been to seek out pure AX25 calls heard on interfaces,
and do a non-netrom type routing (flexnet similarities) and scan for them
and get a 'route' table built on scan results ?

Maiko / VE4KLM

More information about the nos-bbs mailing list