| |
I0OJJ > JNOS2 17.05.26 14:46l 52 Lines 1884 Bytes #230 (0) @ JNOS
BID : 139_IR0EQ
Read: GUEST
Subj: NetRom something to re-think
Path: IZ3LSV<I0OJJ<IR0EQ
Sent: 260517/1240z @:IR0EQ.ITA.EU [Rome] $:139_IR0EQ
>From i0ojj%ir0eq.ita.eu@i0ojj.ampr.org Sun May 17 14:44:12 2026
Received: from i0ojj.ampr.org by i0ojj.ampr.org (JNOS2.0q.1) with SMTP
id AA17059734 ; Sun, 17 May 2026 14:44:12 +0200
Message-Id: <139_IR0EQ@i0ojj.bbs>
>From: i0ojj@ir0eq.ita.eu
X-JNOS-User-Port: Telnet (i0ojj @ 44.27.18.9) -> Sending message
>From i0ojj@rgate.ampr.org Sun May 17 14:40:14 2026
Received: from rgate.ampr.org by rgate.ampr.org (JNOS2.0q.1) with SMTP
id AA1413 ; Sun, 17 May 2026 14:40:14 +0200
Received: by rgate.ampr.org with SMTP
id AA1410 ; Sun, 17 May 2026 14:39:34 +0200
Message-Id: <1411@rgate.ampr.org>
>From: i0ojj@rgate.ampr.org
Date: Sun, 17 May 2026 13:45:06 +0200
From: i0ojj%ir0eq.bbs@i0ojj.ampr.org
To: sysop@ww
Subject: NetRom: something to re-think
NetRom: something to re-think and standardize
Hello everyone,
It has been quite some time now since even the latest developments in
packet radio software have stagnated. Consequently â€öat least for meâ€ö
there is nothing left to tinker with, so I have started conducting
some experiments on my own.
Last night, while running final tests between a JNOS2 node and a
inBPQ node, I noticed that there is â€ölet's sayâ€ö only about 10 percent
compatibility between them; in fact, only one out of every ten BPQ
nodes attempted to connect, and even then, the connection was unstable.
Although I haven't had the time to verify this fully â€öand thus lack a
definitive proofâ€ö the same behavior would likely occur if the counter-
part node were an XR node.
These shortcomings do not appear particularly obvious because the vast
majority of nodes connect *exclusively* to nodes of the same type, that
is, BPQ to BPQ, XR to XR, JNOS to JNOS, and so on.
In my opinion, a single, unified standard should be adopted, one that,
if necessary, should be rewritten from scratch.
--
73 and ciao, gustavo i0ojj
non multa, sed multum
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
