| |
I0OJJ > SYSOP 17.05.26 14:05l 45 Lines 1599 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : A5ND9_I0OJJ
Read: OE5RCO GAST
Subj: NetRom: something to re-think
Path: DB0FFL<OE2XZR<OE6XPE<DB0RKB<DK0WUE<IW2OHX<IR1UAW<IR0AAB<I0OJJ
Sent: 260517/1145z @:I0OJJ.ITA.EU [Rome] $:A5ND9_I0OJJ
>From i0ojj%ir0eq@i0ojj.ampr.org Sun May 17 13:45:12 2026
Received: from i0ojj.ampr.org by i0ojj.ampr.org (JNOS2.0q.1) with SMTP
id AA17059725 ; Sun, 17 May 2026 13:45:12 +0200
Message-Id: <17059723@i0ojj.ampr.org>
>From: i0ojj%ir0eq.bbs@i0ojj.ampr.org
X-JNOS-User-Port: Telnet (ir0eq @ 44.134.109.10) -> Sending message
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
--
73 and ciao, gustavo i0ojj
SICD project Rome Italy
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
--
73 and ciao, gustavo i0ojj
non multa, sed multum
Lese vorherige Mail | Lese naechste Mail
| |
