| |
IW2OHX > PACKET 11.01.19 10:28l 91 Lines 3695 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 8764_IR2UFV
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: PE1ERR > Number of nodes
Path: IW8PGT<IZ3LSV<IK6ZDE<VE2PKT<N9PMO<VE3UIL<I0OJJ<GB7CIP<IR2UFV
Sent: 190111/0810Z 8764@IR2UFV.ILOM.ITA.EU BPQ6.0.18
>From iw2ohx%ir2ufv.ilom.ita.eu@i0ojj.ampr.org Fri Jan 11 09:20:18 2019
Received: from i0ojj.ampr.org by i0ojj.ampr.org (JNOS2.0k.3b) with SMTP
id AA73857 ; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 09:20:18 +0100
Message-Id: <8764_IR2UFV@gb7cip.bbs>
>From: iw2ohx@ir2ufv.ilom.ita.eu
X-JNOS-User-Port: Telnet (gb7cip @ 82.70.39.222) -> Sending message
Hi Brian,
thanks for the explanation.
I agree with you on the potentialities of Flexnet with regards to the
routing.
Here in the north of Italy we had a very robust Flexnet network
with mixed hardware like RMNC, PC/Flexnet, (X)net, DLC7 with (X)Net,
OpenWRT with (X)net, etc..
I guess that in mid-90's they switched (I use "They" because I was
living in another region of Italy at that time) from Net/Rom to Flexnet
thanks to some relations with German guys.
We used to transport IP over AX.25 on Flexnet and it was particularly
efficient on 9k6 and 19k2 RF links.
Unfortunately that network is only a far memory.
73 de iw2ohx
Op. Marco
On 11/01/2019 05:44, N1URO wrote:
> R:190111/0551Z 16721@N3HYM.MD.USA.NOAM BPQ6.0.18
> R:190111/0553Z 9371@N9LCF.#NEIN.IN.USA.NOAM BPQ6.0.18
> R:190111/0553Z @:VE2JOS.#MTL.QC.CAN.NOAM #:48251 [Beauharnois] $:15611_N1URO
> R:190111/0551Z 6030@OK2PEN.SP.BRA.SOAM [Sao Jose dos Campos] $:15611_N1URO
> R:190111/0544Z @:N1URO.#CCT.CT.USA.NOAM #:15611 [Unionville] $:15611_N1URO
>
> From: N1URO@N1URO.#CCT.CT.USA.NOAM
> To : PACKET@WW
>
> Red;
>
>> I think you're just deliberatly misunderstanding me in order to take some
>> virtual high ground
>
> What purpose would that serve? None. I think you're reading too deeply into
> my words.
>
>> Please, explain if you believe it is lack of knowledge, I'm asking for your
>> help in understanding.
>
>> Go on... I dare you
>
> If you meant this you wouldn't pose this as a dare, however to give you a
> little bit of an answer - when you lock in paths and you lose the path to
> a neighbor node whether it be via RF or an internet based path (say your
> ISP loses it's BGP routing to that neighbor for whatever reason) and then
> another neighbor can still give you a path to that node you yourself lost,
> you still risk answering that neighbor's frames through the locked route.
>
> Just as if you had an RF neighbor say on 440Mhz and you locked in a path
> on that frequency to them and they lost their 440Mhz radio and/or TNC for
> whatever reason but they also had a 220Mhz set up as a backup to you, you
> would force any response frames incoming to you on 220 -> 440 because you've
> locked in the route rather than allow it to be dynamic in nature.
>
> Here on EastNet we use pc/FlexNet as our ax.25 routers on our RF network
> and we route NetRom, IPv4, and IPv6 through it fine and because of how
> dynamic the routing is and with the redundant paths we try to maintain
> if one path is lost FlexNet will automatically reroute the frames as they
> can be routed with the best efficiency as possible.
>
> I've even witnessed 2 xNOS systems exchanging an SMTP type message and in
> mid stream the primary path failed however the secondary path automatically
> engaged and the initial IP socket that was created never dropped! It was
> really very fascinating to watch in a sniff!
>
> Granted NetRom's dynamic routing isn't as quick as FlexNet's is but when you
> lock in paths/routes then that's when you in a sense begin to disable what
> it can do for you. Another benefit of flexnet is that it's pure ax25 thus
> taking full advantage of the 256 byte MTU where using NetRom takes away 20
> bytes from the data segment of the frames for it's protocol overhead... thus
> making Flex appear faster.
>
> 73 de N1URO
> ---
> SendBBS v1.1 by N1URO for LinFBB
>
>
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
