Hi, John:
Thanks.
I think that you are answering my question (1.) with a 'yes', but I am not
sure.
I've read all my new mail today and see no answer regarding making
the 'AX.25 accepting CALLSIGN-SSID' manifest.
I think an ALIAS-* can be configured though and this should be good enough.
73, Chuck
John Ackermann wrote:
> 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
