Hi Chuck --
I think that you can configure Linux AX.25 to do what you want.
The secret is that although you do need to assign a unique call/SSID to
each physical port, those calls do not have to be used by the application
or its users. If I recall correctly, you can configure so that the only
place the "hardware" callsign is used is on outbound TCP/IP packets.
You can define the callsign that applications listen for within each
application, or using the ax25d.conf configuration file for programs
that are launched by the ax25d daemon program.
For example, using the ax25d.conf configuration file, you can define
by interface what callsign the node (BPQ-like front end) program will
respond to. You can have multiple calls for one interface, or the
same call for several interfaces. You can also select what happens
based on the *source* callsign of a packet, which opens up some
interesting possibilities. You can also define the NetROM callsign and
alias for incoming connects separately from the NetROM "hardware" callsign.
(By the way, FBB uses its own configuration file to set the callsign
and interfaces it uses, but it can be made to coexist with the node front-
end.)
In short, the various configuration files allow you to use pretty much
whatever callsigns you want for whatever services and ports you want,
and the unique call/SSIDs that you assign to each port can be ignored
in the real world. At worst, they will be seen on oubound UI frames
containing TCP/IP data and NetROM layer 2 packets (and I'm not even
sure about the NetROM example).
My web page at http://www.febo.com/linux-ax25 has a link to an explanation
of how to configure this that includes sample configuration files. It's
still based on the 2.0 kernel and associated tools, but the concept and
vast majority of the configuration info is still valid with 2.2 kernels;
it's mainly the syntax of a few of the tools that has changed.
73,
John N8UR
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charles E. Gelm" writes:
>Hi, Richard et allia:
>
> I probably didn't give enough information in my original post.
>
> I am assuming that everyone in 'linux-hams' is familiar with
>'NetRom', 'TheNet' and 'BPQ node' application. I use packet BBS
>software authored by AA4RE. A mention is made to the node function
>in the MSYS BBS program by WA8BXN.
>
> I run a three radio port packet node and mail switch.
>O/S is MS-DOS v6.22, applications are G8BPQ code v4.08a
>and AA4RE's BB v2.1t.
>
> With this combination I propagate the CALLSIGN-SSID that others
>can use to establish a 'node' circuit to my node switch and the
>CALLSIGN-SSID to use to establish a node circuit to my pBBS.
>These two NODE & BBS CALLSIGN-SSIDs are the same on all packet radio
>ports.
>
> Occasionally my neighbor node's routing is messed up and I need to
>establish AX.25 circuits for forwarding. With TheNet, NetRom, MSYS,
>and G8BPQ nodes it is intuitively obvious what ALIAS-SSID anyone can
>use to establish AX.25 circuits.
>
> What I am asking is;
>
>1. if I change my O/S to linux and my node application to linux-node,
>(and the pBBS application to linux-F6FBB. )
>will my three radio ports each require a unique CALLSIGN-SSID
>for the node and each require a unique CALLSIGN-SSID for the pBBS?
>
>2. Can I make it intuitive what CALLSIGN-SSID or ALAIS-SSID is
>accepting AX.25 circuits to the NODE ?
>
>3. Can I make it intuitive what CALLSIGN-SSID or ALAIS-SSID is
>accepting AX.25 circuits to the pBBS ?
>
>4. Can these CALLSIGN-SSIDs or ALIAS-SSIDs be the same on all radio
>ports?
>
>Chuck nc8q
>a.k.a. Joe Packet
