Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

My my what a mess

Expand Messages
  • Jeff - WA4ZKO
    Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom systems. I took
    Message 1 of 18 , Apr 27, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom systems.

      I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of talking to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running the newer version.

      Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least selectively per port/link.

      As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably looking at a mess.

      Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.

      73
      Jeff
      WA4ZKO
    • John Wiseman
      Ok, I ll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function. But users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes, so I don t think
      Message 2 of 18 , Apr 27, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Message
        Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function. But users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes, so I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process for holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
         
         
        John G8BPQ
         
         
         
         
         
         
        -----Original Message-----
        From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff - WA4ZKO
        Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
        To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess

         

        Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom systems.

        I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of talking to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running the newer version.

        Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least selectively per port/link.

        As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably looking at a mess.

        Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.

        73
        Jeff
        WA4ZKO

      • K.O. Higgs
        It works okay with NETROM and KNET nodes. I have had many problems dealing with xNOS nodes and bbs s in the past. I try to avoid them. 73, K.O. On 4/27/2010
        Message 3 of 18 , Apr 27, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          It works okay with NETROM and KNET nodes.
          I have had many problems dealing with xNOS nodes and bbs's in the past.
          I try to avoid them.

          73,  K.O.

          On 4/27/2010 3:08 PM, Jeff - WA4ZKO wrote:
           

          Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom systems.

          I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of talking to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running the newer version.

          Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least selectively per port/link.

          As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably looking at a mess.

          Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.

          73
          Jeff
          WA4ZKO


          -- 
          
          K.O. Higgs 
          n0kfq@...
          
          
        • Jeff - WA4ZKO
          First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about that. I ve heard
          Message 4 of 18 , Apr 27, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about that.

            I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older versions of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32 node and see what happens.

            The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be exact) link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.

            All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the URONode. The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine. Now the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality. Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and thinks it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user. Things set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks like the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?

            Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I don't have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links, node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.

            But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....

            Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32 nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping over a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node and "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this may heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.

            Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be seeing this in action.

            Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings would prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas when linking to other systems.

            End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter do it's thing.

            Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective approach to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if the neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?

            Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality out...everyone needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely hit the same problem at times?


            73
            Jeff
            WA4ZKO

            --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@...> wrote:
            >
            > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function. But
            > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes, so
            > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process for
            > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
            >
            >
            > John G8BPQ
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
            > Jeff - WA4ZKO
            > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
            > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard
            > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom
            > systems.
            >
            > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the
            > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of talking
            > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running
            > the newer version.
            >
            > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
            > selectively per port/link.
            >
            > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
            > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably
            > looking at a mess.
            >
            > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
            >
            > 73
            > Jeff
            > WA4ZKO
            >
          • Jerry - N9LYA
            Jeff. My Lehigh node is a TheNET Node V 2.08B if you can get to me have a look around and see if you see anything that helps or ???? 73 jerry _____ From:
            Message 5 of 18 , Apr 27, 2010
            • 0 Attachment

              Jeff… My Lehigh node is a TheNET Node V 2.08B if you can get to me have a look around and  see if  you see anything that helps or ????

                73 jerry


              From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff - WA4ZKO
              Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:16 PM
              To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess

               

               

              First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about that.

              I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older versions of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32 node and see what happens.

              The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be exact) link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.

              All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the URONode. The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine. Now the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality. Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and thinks it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user. Things set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks like the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?

              Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I don't have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links, node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.

              But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....

              Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32 nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping over a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node and "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this may heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.

              Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be seeing this in action.

              Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings would prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas when linking to other systems.

              End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter do it's thing.

              Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective approach to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if the neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?

              Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality out...everyone needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely hit the same problem at times?

              73
              Jeff
              WA4ZKO

              --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:

              >
              > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function. But
              > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes, so
              > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process for
              > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
              >
              >
              > John G8BPQ
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
              [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
              > Jeff - WA4ZKO
              > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
              > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
              > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard
              > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom
              > systems.
              >
              > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the
              > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of talking
              > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running
              > the newer version.
              >
              > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
              > selectively per port/link.
              >
              > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
              > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably
              > looking at a mess.
              >
              > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
              >
              > 73
              > Jeff
              > WA4ZKO
              >

            • James Wagner
              Greetings - Does anyone have a DataEngine running PBQ node software to verify whether or not there are any keep-alive with that? Jim Wagner KA7EHK Tangent, OR,
              Message 6 of 18 , Apr 27, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Greetings -

                Does anyone have a DataEngine running PBQ node software to verify whether or not there are any keep-alive with that?

                Jim Wagner
                KA7EHK
                Tangent, OR, USA
                G8BPQ-DE node LYONS


                From: Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@...>
                To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:16:11 PM
                Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess

                 

                First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about that.

                I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older versions of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32 node and see what happens.

                The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be exact) link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.

                All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the URONode. The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine. Now the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality. Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and thinks it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user. Things set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks like the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?

                Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I don't have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links, node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.

                But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....

                Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32 nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping over a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node and "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this may heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.

                Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be seeing this in action.

                Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings would prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas when linking to other systems.

                End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter do it's thing.

                Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective approach to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if the neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?

                Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality out...everyone needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely hit the same problem at times?

                73
                Jeff
                WA4ZKO

                --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:
                >
                > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function. But
                > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes, so
                > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process for
                > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
                >
                >
                > John G8BPQ
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
                > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard
                > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom
                > systems.
                >
                > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the
                > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of talking
                > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running
                > the newer version.
                >
                > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
                > selectively per port/link.
                >
                > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
                > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably
                > looking at a mess.
                >
                > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
                >
                > 73
                > Jeff
                > WA4ZKO
                >


              • Dave Zeph
                I used to have a couple of Date Engine Nodes using V4.07 of G8BPQ s Software. There was no keep alive in that Code. The keep alive for individual Data
                Message 7 of 18 , Apr 27, 2010
                • 0 Attachment

                  I used to have a couple of Date Engine Nodes using V4.07 of G8BPQ’s Software.

                   

                  There was no “keep alive” in that Code.  The “keep alive”  for individual Data Streams came from the Application – like AR-Cluster or PacketCluster running on top of G8BPQ.

                   

                   

                   

                  73 Ú Dave, W9ZRX

                   

                   


                  From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Wagner
                  Sent: Tuesday, 27 April, 2010 18:52
                  To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess

                   

                   

                  Greetings -

                   

                  Does anyone have a DataEngine running PBQ node software to verify whether or not there are any keep-alive with that?

                   

                  Jim Wagner

                  KA7EHK

                  Tangent , OR , USA

                  G8BPQ-DE node LYONS

                   


                  From: Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@yahoo. com>
                  To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                  Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:16:11 PM
                  Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess

                   

                  First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about that.

                  I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older versions of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32 node and see what happens.

                  The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be exact) link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.

                  All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the URONode. The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine. Now the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality. Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and thinks it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user. Things set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks like the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?

                  Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I don't have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links, node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.

                  But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....

                  Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32 nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping over a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node and "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this may heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.

                  Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be seeing this in action.

                  Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings would prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas when linking to other systems.

                  End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter do it's thing.

                  Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective approach to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if the neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?

                  Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality out...everyone needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely hit the same problem at times?

                  73
                  Jeff
                  WA4ZKO

                  --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:

                  >
                  > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function. But
                  > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes, so
                  > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process for
                  > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
                  >
                  >
                  > John G8BPQ
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From:
                  ymailto="mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com">BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                  > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                  > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
                  > To:
                  ymailto="mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com">BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                  > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard
                  > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom
                  > systems.
                  >
                  > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the
                  > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of talking
                  > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running
                  > the newer version.
                  >
                  > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
                  > selectively per port/link.
                  >
                  > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
                  > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably
                  > looking at a mess.
                  >
                  > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
                  >
                  > 73
                  > Jeff
                  > WA4ZKO
                  >

                   

                • James Wagner
                  Ooops, typo - obviously meant BPQ .... Jim, KA7EHK ________________________________ From: James Wagner To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue,
                  Message 8 of 18 , Apr 27, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ooops, typo - obviously meant BPQ ....

                    Jim, KA7EHK


                    From: James Wagner <ka7ehk@...>
                    To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:51:59 PM
                    Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess

                     

                    Greetings -

                    Does anyone have a DataEngine running PBQ node software to verify whether or not there are any keep-alive with that?

                    Jim Wagner
                    KA7EHK
                    Tangent, OR, USA
                    G8BPQ-DE node LYONS


                    From: Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@yahoo. com>
                    To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                    Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:16:11 PM
                    Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess

                     

                    First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about that.

                    I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older versions of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32 node and see what happens.

                    The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be exact) link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.

                    All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the URONode. The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine. Now the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality. Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and thinks it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user. Things set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks like the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?

                    Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I don't have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links, node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.

                    But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....

                    Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32 nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping over a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node and "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this may heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.

                    Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be seeing this in action.

                    Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings would prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas when linking to other systems.

                    End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter do it's thing.

                    Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective approach to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if the neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?

                    Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality out...everyone needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely hit the same problem at times?

                    73
                    Jeff
                    WA4ZKO

                    --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function. But
                    > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes, so
                    > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process for
                    > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
                    >
                    >
                    > John G8BPQ
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                    > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                    > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
                    > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                    > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard
                    > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom
                    > systems.
                    >
                    > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the
                    > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of talking
                    > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running
                    > the newer version.
                    >
                    > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
                    > selectively per port/link.
                    >
                    > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
                    > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably
                    > looking at a mess.
                    >
                    > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
                    >
                    > 73
                    > Jeff
                    > WA4ZKO
                    >



                  • Hank Oredson
                    Yes (GOBLE, LYONS e.g.) No keep-alive as far as I can tell, assuming I understand keep-alive correctly. You could check against LYONS ... ... From: James
                    Message 9 of 18 , Apr 27, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      
                      Yes (GOBLE, LYONS e.g.)
                      No keep-alive as far as I can tell, assuming I understand "keep-alive" correctly.
                      You could check against LYONS ...
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 4:08 PM
                      Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess

                       

                      Ooops, typo - obviously meant BPQ ....

                      Jim, KA7EHK


                      From: James Wagner <ka7ehk@yahoo. com>
                      To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                      Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:51:59 PM
                      Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess

                       

                      Greetings -

                      Does anyone have a DataEngine running PBQ node software to verify whether or not there are any keep-alive with that?

                      Jim Wagner
                      KA7EHK
                      Tangent, OR, USA
                      G8BPQ-DE node LYONS


                      From: Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@yahoo. com>
                      To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                      Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:16:11 PM
                      Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess

                       

                      First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about that.

                      I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older versions of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32 node and see what happens.

                      The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be exact) link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.

                      All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the URONode. The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine. Now the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality. Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and thinks it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user. Things set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks like the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?

                      Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I don't have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links, node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.

                      But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....

                      Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32 nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping over a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node and "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this may heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.

                      Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be seeing this in action.

                      Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings would prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas when linking to other systems.

                      End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter do it's thing.

                      Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective approach to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if the neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?

                      Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality out...everyone needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely hit the same problem at times?

                      73
                      Jeff
                      WA4ZKO

                      --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function. But
                      > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes, so
                      > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process for
                      > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
                      >
                      >
                      > John G8BPQ
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                      > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                      > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
                      > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                      > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard
                      > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom
                      > systems.
                      >
                      > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the
                      > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of talking
                      > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running
                      > the newer version.
                      >
                      > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
                      > selectively per port/link.
                      >
                      > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
                      > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably
                      > looking at a mess.
                      >
                      > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
                      >
                      > 73
                      > Jeff
                      > WA4ZKO
                      >



                    • Jeff - WA4ZKO
                      That might be a good question to explore...how does the DOS version and DE versions of BPQ behave against a BPQ32 node s keepalive polling? Been looking for a
                      Message 10 of 18 , Apr 27, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        That might be a good question to explore...how does the DOS version and DE versions of BPQ behave against a BPQ32 node's keepalive polling?

                        Been looking for a DE myself. Understand it makes a good setup, but getting hard to come by.


                        73
                        Jeff
                        WA4ZKO

                        --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, James Wagner <ka7ehk@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Greetings -
                        >
                        > Does anyone have a DataEngine running PBQ node software to verify whether or not there are any keep-alive with that?
                        >
                        > Jim Wagner
                        > KA7EHK
                        > Tangent, OR, USA
                        > G8BPQ-DE node LYONS
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > From: Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@...>
                        > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:16:11 PM
                        > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess
                        >
                        >
                        > First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about that.
                        >
                        > I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older versions of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32 node and see what happens.
                        >
                        > The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be exact) link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.
                        >
                        > All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the URONode. The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine. Now the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality. Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and thinks it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user. Things set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks like the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?
                        >
                        > Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I don't have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links, node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.
                        >
                        > But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....
                        >
                        > Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32 nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping over a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node and "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this may heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.
                        >
                        > Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be seeing this in action.
                        >
                        > Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings would prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas when linking to other systems.
                        >
                        > End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter do it's thing.
                        >
                        > Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective approach to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if the neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?
                        >
                        > Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality out...everyone needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely hit the same problem at times?
                        >
                        > 73
                        > Jeff
                        > WA4ZKO
                        >
                        > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function. But
                        > > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes, so
                        > > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process for
                        > > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > John G8BPQ
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                        > > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                        > > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
                        > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                        > > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard
                        > > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom
                        > > systems.
                        > >
                        > > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the
                        > > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of talking
                        > > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running
                        > > the newer version.
                        > >
                        > > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
                        > > selectively per port/link.
                        > >
                        > > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
                        > > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably
                        > > looking at a mess.
                        > >
                        > > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
                        > >
                        > > 73
                        > > Jeff
                        > > WA4ZKO
                        > >
                        >
                      • Jeff - WA4ZKO
                        Does it hear your BPQ32 node good? If so watch between node broadcasts from it when things are idle between you and it. Does the obs counter for LEHIGH on
                        Message 11 of 18 , Apr 27, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Does it hear your BPQ32 node good?

                          If so watch between node broadcasts from it when things are idle between you and it. Does the obs counter for LEHIGH on your BPQ32 node stay where it should? Just do a N LEHIGH every minute or two for a bit. Or do you see odd drops (more than 1 down) on the obs counter after a bit...maybe even it disappearing from your BPQ32's nodes list for a minute or two till another broadcast comes in from LEHIGH?

                          Like I said previously, if you're not doing locked routes and depending on the broadcasts to keep things correct...you may have the problem and not know it. Occasionally you would be missing a node in the list that should of been there, then minutes later it's back and all seems fine.

                          I've also seen it get possessed at times and the obs counter will show a triple digit value like 200 or so (wow). That's rare and I haven't seen it with the latest version of BPQ32.

                          73
                          Jeff
                          WA4ZKO

                          --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry - N9LYA" <n9lya@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Jeff. My Lehigh node is a TheNET Node V 2.08B if you can get to me have a
                          > look around and see if you see anything that helps or ????
                          >
                          > 73 jerry
                          >
                          > _____
                          >
                          > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
                          > - WA4ZKO
                          > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:16 PM
                          > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding
                          > chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about that.
                          >
                          > I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but haven't
                          > had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older versions of TheNet
                          > too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32 node and see
                          > what happens.
                          >
                          > The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be exact)
                          > link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can link
                          > and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started testing it
                          > so we may hit other issues on down the road.
                          >
                          > All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the URONode. The
                          > BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine. Now the fun
                          > begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a node<>node
                          > link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality. Problem is UROnode
                          > takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and thinks it's a user connect
                          > and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user. Things set there idle to a
                          > timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the connection. This process
                          > repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks like the keepalive function is
                          > hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?
                          >
                          > Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I don't
                          > have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another tactic
                          > to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see that the
                          > "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of BPQ32. I had a
                          > copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I installed it. Bingo,
                          > all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links, node broadcasts, and
                          > connections worked fine.
                          >
                          > But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....
                          >
                          > Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of BPQ32
                          > isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32 nodes. On
                          > those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping over a period of a
                          > few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is right and the
                          > downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in time....the upstream
                          > node falls out of the node list. This stays this way until a new/fresh node
                          > broadcast comes in from the upstream node and "heals" things for awhile.
                          > Dependings on what timings are used, this may heal itself quickly or it
                          > could be a few minutes.
                          >
                          > Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it if
                          > they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your adjacent
                          > nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be seeing this in
                          > action.
                          >
                          > Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings would
                          > prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas when
                          > linking to other systems.
                          >
                          > End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then again it
                          > creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter do it's thing.
                          >
                          > Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective approach to
                          > enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if the
                          > neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?
                          >
                          > Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality out...everyone
                          > needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely hit the
                          > same problem at times?
                          >
                          > 73
                          > Jeff
                          > WA4ZKO
                          >
                          > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com, "John
                          > Wiseman" <john.wiseman@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function. But
                          > > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes, so
                          > > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process for
                          > > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > John G8BPQ
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > -----Original Message-----
                          > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com
                          > [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
                          > Of
                          > > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                          > > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
                          > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com
                          > > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard
                          > > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom
                          > > systems.
                          > >
                          > > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the
                          > > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of talking
                          > > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running
                          > > the newer version.
                          > >
                          > > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
                          > > selectively per port/link.
                          > >
                          > > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
                          > > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably
                          > > looking at a mess.
                          > >
                          > > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
                          > >
                          > > 73
                          > > Jeff
                          > > WA4ZKO
                          > >
                          >
                        • James Wagner
                          I am the new owner of the LYONS node I referenced below. I would like to check current G8BPQ node software against it, but I don t have a viable machine to
                          Message 12 of 18 , Apr 27, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I am the new owner of the LYONS node I referenced below. I would like to check current G8BPQ node software against it, but I don't have a viable machine to use. It would take a fair effort to get one going, so I was hoping that someone has had some experience, already.

                            Jim, KA7EHK


                            From: Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@...>
                            To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 4:24:59 PM
                            Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess

                             

                            That might be a good question to explore...how does the DOS version and DE versions of BPQ behave against a BPQ32 node's keepalive polling?

                            Been looking for a DE myself. Understand it makes a good setup, but getting hard to come by.

                            73
                            Jeff
                            WA4ZKO

                            --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, James Wagner <ka7ehk@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Greetings -
                            >
                            > Does anyone have a DataEngine running PBQ node software to verify whether or not there are any keep-alive with that?
                            >
                            > Jim Wagner
                            > KA7EHK
                            > Tangent, OR, USA
                            > G8BPQ-DE node LYONS
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ____________ _________ _________ __
                            > From: Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@...>
                            > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                            > Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:16:11 PM
                            > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess
                            >
                            >
                            > First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about that.
                            >
                            > I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older versions of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32 node and see what happens.
                            >
                            > The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be exact) link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.
                            >
                            > All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the URONode. The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine. Now the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality. Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and thinks it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user. Things set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks like the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?
                            >
                            > Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I don't have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links, node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.
                            >
                            > But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....
                            >
                            > Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32 nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping over a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node and "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this may heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.
                            >
                            > Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be seeing this in action.
                            >
                            > Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings would prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas when linking to other systems.
                            >
                            > End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter do it's thing.
                            >
                            > Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective approach to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if the neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?
                            >
                            > Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality out...everyone needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely hit the same problem at times?
                            >
                            > 73
                            > Jeff
                            > WA4ZKO
                            >
                            > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function. But
                            > > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes, so
                            > > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process for
                            > > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > John G8BPQ
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > -----Original Message-----
                            > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                            > > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                            > > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
                            > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                            > > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard
                            > > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom
                            > > systems.
                            > >
                            > > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the
                            > > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of talking
                            > > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running
                            > > the newer version.
                            > >
                            > > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
                            > > selectively per port/link.
                            > >
                            > > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
                            > > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably
                            > > looking at a mess.
                            > >
                            > > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
                            > >
                            > > 73
                            > > Jeff
                            > > WA4ZKO
                            > >
                            >


                          • John Wiseman
                            I don t have a Data Engine, but I ve tested with a DOS BPQ Node (which uses the same source code as the DE version), and the BPQ32 keepalive system doesn t
                            Message 13 of 18 , Apr 28, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Message
                              I don't have a Data Engine, but I've tested with a DOS BPQ Node (which uses the same source code as the DE version), and the BPQ32 keepalive system doesn't cause any problem SO LONG AS the IDLETIME param on the DOS Node is at least as great as that of the BPQ32 node.
                               
                              This issue with IDLETIME would apply to other systems, so if you are having problems with links closing regularly, check the IDLETIME settings at each end.
                               
                              Jeff's problem with UROnode seems to be different - for some reason it is treating a connection from a node as if it is from a user. I don't know enough about linuxnode and it's derivatives to know if this is a configuration problem or a design feature.
                               
                              73,
                              John G8BPQ
                               
                               
                               
                               
                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Wagner
                              Sent: 27 April 2010 23:52
                              To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess

                               

                              Greetings -

                              Does anyone have a DataEngine running PBQ node software to verify whether or not there are any keep-alive with that?

                              Jim Wagner
                              KA7EHK
                              Tangent, OR, USA
                              G8BPQ-DE node LYONS


                              From: Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@yahoo. com>
                              To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                              Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:16:11 PM
                              Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess

                               

                              First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about that.

                              I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older versions of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32 node and see what happens.

                              The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be exact) link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.

                              All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the URONode. The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine. Now the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality. Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and thinks it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user. Things set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks like the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?

                              Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I don't have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links, node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.

                              But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....

                              Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32 nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping over a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node and "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this may heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.

                              Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be seeing this in action.

                              Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings would prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas when linking to other systems.

                              End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter do it's thing.

                              Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective approach to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if the neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?

                              Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality out...everyone needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely hit the same problem at times?

                              73
                              Jeff
                              WA4ZKO

                              --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function. But
                              > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes, so
                              > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process for
                              > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
                              >
                              >
                              > John G8BPQ
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                              > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                              > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
                              > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                              > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard
                              > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ netrom
                              > systems.
                              >
                              > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the
                              > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of talking
                              > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running
                              > the newer version.
                              >
                              > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
                              > selectively per port/link.
                              >
                              > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
                              > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably
                              > looking at a mess.
                              >
                              > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
                              >
                              > 73
                              > Jeff
                              > WA4ZKO
                              >


                            • Jeff - WA4ZKO
                              Good deal, I have a site where using a dataengine would be more practical. Just need to find one (and preferably a spare), but like most of the old but good
                              Message 14 of 18 , Apr 28, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Good deal, I have a site where using a dataengine would be more practical. Just need to find one (and preferably a spare), but like most of the "old but good" Kantronic's stuff....darn hard to find anymore.

                                John is the DE BPQ code pretty much in sync feature/bug fix wise with the BPQ32 codebase now? I assume that due to the limited hardware resources in a DE that there is stuff in BPQ32 that will not "fit" into the DE code. Good solid basic switch functionality that "just runs and runs" is what I would need at this site...less I have to touch it...the better ;-)

                                Is IDLETIME hard coded to 900 in BPQ32 now? Seems like I tried working with that a bit and nothing changed.

                                John I'm thinking Brian (N1URO) never finished the netrom portion of UROnode. I think his priorities were the FlexNet portion of it since FlexNet is very dominant in the northeast USA networks. KD1ZD is kind of unofficially maintaining it now. So far I think he's just been focusing on getting it going on the more modern kernels. May have to have you two hook up and debug what is going on between UROnode and BPQ32. Sooner or later we'll probably have others wanting to mix those two together ;-)

                                I'm going to try and go back to the new version of BPQ32 today. We've got node broadcasts turned off and I think a locked route on both ends might be the best workaround for now.



                                --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I don't have a Data Engine, but I've tested with a DOS BPQ Node (which
                                > uses the same source code as the DE version), and the BPQ32 keepalive
                                > system doesn't cause any problem SO LONG AS the IDLETIME param on the
                                > DOS Node is at least as great as that of the BPQ32 node.
                                >
                                > This issue with IDLETIME would apply to other systems, so if you are
                                > having problems with links closing regularly, check the IDLETIME
                                > settings at each end.
                                >
                                > Jeff's problem with UROnode seems to be different - for some reason it
                                > is treating a connection from a node as if it is from a user. I don't
                                > know enough about linuxnode and it's derivatives to know if this is a
                                > configuration problem or a design feature.
                                >
                                > 73,
                                > John G8BPQ
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                                > James Wagner
                                > Sent: 27 April 2010 23:52
                                > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Greetings -
                                >
                                > Does anyone have a DataEngine running PBQ node software to verify
                                > whether or not there are any keep-alive with that?
                                >
                                > Jim Wagner
                                > KA7EHK
                                > Tangent, OR, USA
                                > G8BPQ-DE node LYONS
                                >
                                >
                                > _____
                                >
                                > From: Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@...>
                                > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:16:11 PM
                                > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding
                                > chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about
                                > that.
                                >
                                > I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but
                                > haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older versions
                                > of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32
                                > node and see what happens.
                                >
                                > The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be exact)
                                > link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can
                                > link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started
                                > testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.
                                >
                                > All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the URONode.
                                > The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine. Now
                                > the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a
                                > node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality.
                                > Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and thinks
                                > it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user. Things
                                > set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the
                                > connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks like
                                > the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?
                                >
                                > Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I don't
                                > have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another
                                > tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see
                                > that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of
                                > BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I
                                > installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links,
                                > node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.
                                >
                                > But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....
                                >
                                > Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of
                                > BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32
                                > nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping over
                                > a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is
                                > right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in
                                > time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this
                                > way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node and
                                > "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this may
                                > heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.
                                >
                                > Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it
                                > if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your
                                > adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be seeing
                                > this in action.
                                >
                                > Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings would
                                > prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas
                                > when linking to other systems.
                                >
                                > End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then
                                > again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter do
                                > it's thing.
                                >
                                > Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective approach
                                > to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if the
                                > neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?
                                >
                                > Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality out...everyone
                                > needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely hit
                                > the same problem at times?
                                >
                                > 73
                                > Jeff
                                > WA4ZKO
                                >
                                > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> , "John
                                > Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function.
                                > But
                                > > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes,
                                > so
                                > > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process
                                > for
                                > > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > John G8BPQ
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > -----Original Message-----
                                > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com>
                                > [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
                                > Behalf Of
                                > > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                                > > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
                                > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com>
                                > > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard
                                > > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ
                                > netrom
                                > > systems.
                                > >
                                > > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the
                                > > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of
                                > talking
                                > > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running
                                > > the newer version.
                                > >
                                > > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
                                > > selectively per port/link.
                                > >
                                > > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
                                > > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably
                                > > looking at a mess.
                                > >
                                > > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
                                > >
                                > > 73
                                > > Jeff
                                > > WA4ZKO
                                > >
                                >
                              • Robert Thoelen
                                Greetings! I ve been on this mailing list for several years, but haven t been watching it, due to the loss of interest in amateur radio. I m interested again,
                                Message 15 of 18 , Apr 28, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Greetings!

                                  I've been on this mailing list for several years, but haven't been watching it, due to the loss of interest in amateur radio.  I'm interested again, and as Jeff has mentioned, managed to get UROnode working on a more recent kernel.

                                  There are a few problems I'm trying to solve at the moment.  The biggest one I can think of besides the one Jeff pointed out is that I'm not able to NET/ROM connects, I think because I may need to change some arguments provided to bind() in UNIX.  Possibly these have changed with the 2.6 kernels.

                                  I checked the source last night into GitHub, so that others can see the code and submit changes as well.  I don't mind being considered the current maintainer, but would like to have the code out in the open as much.  UROnode as far as I can tell is released under the GPL, and GitHub provides a free repository for public open source projects, so I'm thinking this is the best way to keep the code from getting lost again.

                                  My system right now is experimental, but I am now considered part of the Eastnet Flexnet network, of which documentation can be found at http://eastnetpacket.net/.  I also am linking to Jeff's BPQ32 nodes.  So right now we do have a sort of "bridge" going, but we need to work out the details.

                                  Details of what my system is capable of and what I'm doing can be found at http://www.rtcubed.org/kd1zd.



                                  On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  Good deal, I have a site where using a dataengine would be more practical. Just need to find one (and preferably a spare), but like most of the "old but good" Kantronic's stuff....darn hard to find anymore.

                                  John is the DE BPQ code pretty much in sync feature/bug fix wise with the BPQ32 codebase now? I assume that due to the limited hardware resources in a DE that there is stuff in BPQ32 that will not "fit" into the DE code. Good solid basic switch functionality that "just runs and runs" is what I would need at this site...less I have to touch it...the better ;-)

                                  Is IDLETIME hard coded to 900 in BPQ32 now? Seems like I tried working with that a bit and nothing changed.

                                  John I'm thinking Brian (N1URO) never finished the netrom portion of UROnode. I think his priorities were the FlexNet portion of it since FlexNet is very dominant in the northeast USA networks. KD1ZD is kind of unofficially maintaining it now. So far I think he's just been focusing on getting it going on the more modern kernels. May have to have you two hook up and debug what is going on between UROnode and BPQ32. Sooner or later we'll probably have others wanting to mix those two together ;-)

                                  I'm going to try and go back to the new version of BPQ32 today. We've got node broadcasts turned off and I think a locked route on both ends might be the best workaround for now.


                                  --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > I don't have a Data Engine, but I've tested with a DOS BPQ Node (which
                                  > uses the same source code as the DE version), and the BPQ32 keepalive
                                  > system doesn't cause any problem SO LONG AS the IDLETIME param on the
                                  > DOS Node is at least as great as that of the BPQ32 node.
                                  >
                                  > This issue with IDLETIME would apply to other systems, so if you are
                                  > having problems with links closing regularly, check the IDLETIME
                                  > settings at each end.
                                  >
                                  > Jeff's problem with UROnode seems to be different - for some reason it
                                  > is treating a connection from a node as if it is from a user. I don't
                                  > know enough about linuxnode and it's derivatives to know if this is a
                                  > configuration problem or a design feature.
                                  >
                                  > 73,
                                  > John G8BPQ
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                                  > James Wagner
                                  > Sent: 27 April 2010 23:52
                                  > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Greetings -
                                  >
                                  > Does anyone have a DataEngine running PBQ node software to verify
                                  > whether or not there are any keep-alive with that?
                                  >
                                  > Jim Wagner
                                  > KA7EHK
                                  > Tangent, OR, USA
                                  > G8BPQ-DE node LYONS
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > _____
                                  >
                                  > From: Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@...>

                                  > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:16:11 PM
                                  > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding
                                  > chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about
                                  > that.
                                  >
                                  > I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but
                                  > haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older versions
                                  > of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32
                                  > node and see what happens.
                                  >
                                  > The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be exact)
                                  > link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can
                                  > link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started
                                  > testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.
                                  >
                                  > All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the URONode.
                                  > The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine. Now
                                  > the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a
                                  > node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality.
                                  > Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and thinks
                                  > it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user. Things
                                  > set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the
                                  > connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks like
                                  > the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?
                                  >
                                  > Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I don't
                                  > have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another
                                  > tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see
                                  > that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of
                                  > BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I
                                  > installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links,
                                  > node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.
                                  >
                                  > But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....
                                  >
                                  > Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of
                                  > BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32
                                  > nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping over
                                  > a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is
                                  > right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in
                                  > time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this
                                  > way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node and
                                  > "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this may
                                  > heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.
                                  >
                                  > Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it
                                  > if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your
                                  > adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be seeing
                                  > this in action.
                                  >
                                  > Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings would
                                  > prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas
                                  > when linking to other systems.
                                  >
                                  > End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then
                                  > again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter do
                                  > it's thing.
                                  >
                                  > Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective approach
                                  > to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if the
                                  > neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?
                                  >
                                  > Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality out...everyone
                                  > needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely hit
                                  > the same problem at times?
                                  >
                                  > 73
                                  > Jeff
                                  > WA4ZKO
                                  >
                                  > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> , "John

                                  > Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function.
                                  > But
                                  > > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes,
                                  > so
                                  > > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process
                                  > for
                                  > > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > John G8BPQ
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > -----Original Message-----
                                  > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com>
                                  > [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
                                  > Behalf Of
                                  > > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                                  > > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
                                  > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com>
                                  > > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard
                                  > > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ
                                  > netrom
                                  > > systems.
                                  > >
                                  > > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the
                                  > > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of
                                  > talking
                                  > > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running
                                  > > the newer version.
                                  > >
                                  > > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
                                  > > selectively per port/link.
                                  > >
                                  > > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
                                  > > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably
                                  > > looking at a mess.
                                  > >
                                  > > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
                                  > >
                                  > > 73
                                  > > Jeff
                                  > > WA4ZKO
                                  > >
                                  >




                                • John Wiseman
                                  The DOS and DE versions don t have any of the BPQ32 application support stuff, or INP3. But the basic L2 and NETROM code is the same. No, IDLETIME isn t hard
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Apr 28, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Message
                                    The DOS and DE versions don't have any of the BPQ32 application support stuff, or INP3. But the basic L2 and NETROM code is the same.
                                     
                                    No, IDLETIME isn't hard coded.
                                     
                                    If you turn off NODES broadcasts, you will have to lock both the Route and the Nodes.
                                     
                                    I'm testing a version which allows the node keepalives to be turned off - hopefully it will be released in the next day or two.
                                     
                                    73,
                                    John
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff - WA4ZKO
                                    Sent: 28 April 2010 14:54
                                    To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [BPQ32] Re: BPQ32 Keepalives

                                     

                                    Good deal, I have a site where using a dataengine would be more practical. Just need to find one (and preferably a spare), but like most of the "old but good" Kantronic's stuff....darn hard to find anymore.

                                    John is the DE BPQ code pretty much in sync feature/bug fix wise with the BPQ32 codebase now? I assume that due to the limited hardware resources in a DE that there is stuff in BPQ32 that will not "fit" into the DE code. Good solid basic switch functionality that "just runs and runs" is what I would need at this site...less I have to touch it...the better ;-)

                                    Is IDLETIME hard coded to 900 in BPQ32 now? Seems like I tried working with that a bit and nothing changed.

                                    John I'm thinking Brian (N1URO) never finished the netrom portion of UROnode. I think his priorities were the FlexNet portion of it since FlexNet is very dominant in the northeast USA networks. KD1ZD is kind of unofficially maintaining it now. So far I think he's just been focusing on getting it going on the more modern kernels. May have to have you two hook up and debug what is going on between UROnode and BPQ32. Sooner or later we'll probably have others wanting to mix those two together ;-)

                                    I'm going to try and go back to the new version of BPQ32 today. We've got node broadcasts turned off and I think a locked route on both ends might be the best workaround for now.

                                    --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > I don't have a Data Engine, but I've tested with a DOS BPQ Node (which
                                    > uses the same source code as the DE version), and the BPQ32 keepalive
                                    > system doesn't cause any problem SO LONG AS the IDLETIME param on the
                                    > DOS Node is at least as great as that of the BPQ32 node.
                                    >
                                    > This issue with IDLETIME would apply to other systems, so if you are
                                    > having problems with links closing regularly, check the IDLETIME
                                    > settings at each end.
                                    >
                                    > Jeff's problem with UROnode seems to be different - for some reason it
                                    > is treating a connection from a node as if it is from a user. I don't
                                    > know enough about linuxnode and it's derivatives to know if this is a
                                    > configuration problem or a design feature.
                                    >
                                    > 73,
                                    > John G8BPQ
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > -----Original Message-----
                                    > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                                    > James Wagner
                                    > Sent: 27 April 2010 23:52
                                    > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                    > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Greetings -
                                    >
                                    > Does anyone have a DataEngine running PBQ node software to verify
                                    > whether or not there are any keep-alive with that?
                                    >
                                    > Jim Wagner
                                    > KA7EHK
                                    > Tangent, OR, USA
                                    > G8BPQ-DE node LYONS
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > _____
                                    >
                                    > From: Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@...>
                                    > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                    > Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:16:11 PM
                                    > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than adding
                                    > chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about
                                    > that.
                                    >
                                    > I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but
                                    > haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older versions
                                    > of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32
                                    > node and see what happens.
                                    >
                                    > The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be exact)
                                    > link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can
                                    > link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started
                                    > testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.
                                    >
                                    > All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the URONode.
                                    > The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine. Now
                                    > the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a
                                    > node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality.
                                    > Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and thinks
                                    > it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user. Things
                                    > set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the
                                    > connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks like
                                    > the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?
                                    >
                                    > Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I don't
                                    > have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another
                                    > tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see
                                    > that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of
                                    > BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I
                                    > installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links,
                                    > node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.
                                    >
                                    > But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....
                                    >
                                    > Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of
                                    > BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32
                                    > nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping over
                                    > a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is
                                    > right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in
                                    > time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this
                                    > way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node and
                                    > "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this may
                                    > heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.
                                    >
                                    > Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it
                                    > if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your
                                    > adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be seeing
                                    > this in action.
                                    >
                                    > Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings would
                                    > prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas
                                    > when linking to other systems.
                                    >
                                    > End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then
                                    > again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter do
                                    > it's thing.
                                    >
                                    > Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective approach
                                    > to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if the
                                    > neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?
                                    >
                                    > Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality out...everyone
                                    > needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely hit
                                    > the same problem at times?
                                    >
                                    > 73
                                    > Jeff
                                    > WA4ZKO
                                    >
                                    > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> , "John
                                    > Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function.
                                    > But
                                    > > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes,
                                    > so
                                    > > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process
                                    > for
                                    > > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > John G8BPQ
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > -----Original Message-----
                                    > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com>
                                    > [mailto:BPQ32@ yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> ] On
                                    > Behalf Of
                                    > > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                                    > > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
                                    > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com>
                                    > > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the non-standard
                                    > > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ
                                    > netrom
                                    > > systems.
                                    > >
                                    > > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before the
                                    > > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of
                                    > talking
                                    > > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream running
                                    > > the newer version.
                                    > >
                                    > > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
                                    > > selectively per port/link.
                                    > >
                                    > > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
                                    > > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're probably
                                    > > looking at a mess.
                                    > >
                                    > > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
                                    > >
                                    > > 73
                                    > > Jeff
                                    > > WA4ZKO
                                    > >
                                    >

                                  • Jeff - WA4ZKO
                                    I know about locking a route, but how do we lock a node in? That could be darn handy in places! Be glad to help test the new version in the works. 73 Jeff
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Apr 28, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I know about locking a route, but how do we lock a node in? That could be darn handy in places!

                                      Be glad to help test the new version in the works.

                                      73
                                      Jeff
                                      WA4ZKO

                                      --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > The DOS and DE versions don't have any of the BPQ32 application support
                                      > stuff, or INP3. But the basic L2 and NETROM code is the same.
                                      >
                                      > No, IDLETIME isn't hard coded.
                                      >
                                      > If you turn off NODES broadcasts, you will have to lock both the Route
                                      > and the Nodes.
                                      >
                                      > I'm testing a version which allows the node keepalives to be turned off
                                      > - hopefully it will be released in the next day or two.
                                      >
                                      > 73,
                                      > John
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > -----Original Message-----
                                      > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                                      > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                                      > Sent: 28 April 2010 14:54
                                      > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                                      > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: BPQ32 Keepalives
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Good deal, I have a site where using a dataengine would be more
                                      > practical. Just need to find one (and preferably a spare), but like most
                                      > of the "old but good" Kantronic's stuff....darn hard to find anymore.
                                      >
                                      > John is the DE BPQ code pretty much in sync feature/bug fix wise with
                                      > the BPQ32 codebase now? I assume that due to the limited hardware
                                      > resources in a DE that there is stuff in BPQ32 that will not "fit" into
                                      > the DE code. Good solid basic switch functionality that "just runs and
                                      > runs" is what I would need at this site...less I have to touch it...the
                                      > better ;-)
                                      >
                                      > Is IDLETIME hard coded to 900 in BPQ32 now? Seems like I tried working
                                      > with that a bit and nothing changed.
                                      >
                                      > John I'm thinking Brian (N1URO) never finished the netrom portion of
                                      > UROnode. I think his priorities were the FlexNet portion of it since
                                      > FlexNet is very dominant in the northeast USA networks. KD1ZD is kind of
                                      > unofficially maintaining it now. So far I think he's just been focusing
                                      > on getting it going on the more modern kernels. May have to have you two
                                      > hook up and debug what is going on between UROnode and BPQ32. Sooner or
                                      > later we'll probably have others wanting to mix those two together ;-)
                                      >
                                      > I'm going to try and go back to the new version of BPQ32 today. We've
                                      > got node broadcasts turned off and I think a locked route on both ends
                                      > might be the best workaround for now.
                                      >
                                      > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com, "John
                                      > Wiseman" <john.wiseman@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > I don't have a Data Engine, but I've tested with a DOS BPQ Node (which
                                      > > uses the same source code as the DE version), and the BPQ32 keepalive
                                      > > system doesn't cause any problem SO LONG AS the IDLETIME param on the
                                      > > DOS Node is at least as great as that of the BPQ32 node.
                                      > >
                                      > > This issue with IDLETIME would apply to other systems, so if you are
                                      > > having problems with links closing regularly, check the IDLETIME
                                      > > settings at each end.
                                      > >
                                      > > Jeff's problem with UROnode seems to be different - for some reason it
                                      > > is treating a connection from a node as if it is from a user. I don't
                                      > > know enough about linuxnode and it's derivatives to know if this is a
                                      > > configuration problem or a design feature.
                                      > >
                                      > > 73,
                                      > > John G8BPQ
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > -----Original Message-----
                                      > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com
                                      > [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com] On
                                      > Behalf Of
                                      > > James Wagner
                                      > > Sent: 27 April 2010 23:52
                                      > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com
                                      > > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Greetings -
                                      > >
                                      > > Does anyone have a DataEngine running PBQ node software to verify
                                      > > whether or not there are any keep-alive with that?
                                      > >
                                      > > Jim Wagner
                                      > > KA7EHK
                                      > > Tangent, OR, USA
                                      > > G8BPQ-DE node LYONS
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > _____
                                      > >
                                      > > From: Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@>
                                      > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com
                                      > > Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:16:11 PM
                                      > > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than
                                      > adding
                                      > > chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about
                                      > > that.
                                      > >
                                      > > I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but
                                      > > haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older
                                      > versions
                                      > > of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32
                                      > > node and see what happens.
                                      > >
                                      > > The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be
                                      > exact)
                                      > > link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can
                                      > > link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started
                                      > > testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.
                                      > >
                                      > > All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the
                                      > URONode.
                                      > > The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine.
                                      > Now
                                      > > the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a
                                      > > node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality.
                                      > > Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and
                                      > thinks
                                      > > it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user.
                                      > Things
                                      > > set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the
                                      > > connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks
                                      > like
                                      > > the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?
                                      > >
                                      > > Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I
                                      > don't
                                      > > have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another
                                      > > tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see
                                      > > that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of
                                      > > BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I
                                      > > installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links,
                                      > > node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.
                                      > >
                                      > > But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....
                                      > >
                                      > > Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of
                                      > > BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32
                                      > > nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping
                                      > over
                                      > > a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is
                                      > > right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in
                                      > > time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this
                                      > > way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node
                                      > and
                                      > > "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this
                                      > may
                                      > > heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.
                                      > >
                                      > > Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it
                                      > > if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your
                                      > > adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be
                                      > seeing
                                      > > this in action.
                                      > >
                                      > > Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings
                                      > would
                                      > > prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas
                                      > > when linking to other systems.
                                      > >
                                      > > End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then
                                      > > again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter
                                      > do
                                      > > it's thing.
                                      > >
                                      > > Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective
                                      > approach
                                      > > to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if
                                      > the
                                      > > neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?
                                      > >
                                      > > Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality
                                      > out...everyone
                                      > > needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely
                                      > hit
                                      > > the same problem at times?
                                      > >
                                      > > 73
                                      > > Jeff
                                      > > WA4ZKO
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> , "John
                                      > > Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function.
                                      > > But
                                      > > > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes,
                                      > > so
                                      > > > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process
                                      > > for
                                      > > > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > John G8BPQ
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > -----Original Message-----
                                      > > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com>
                                      > > [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
                                      > > Behalf Of
                                      > > > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                                      > > > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
                                      > > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com>
                                      > > > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the
                                      > non-standard
                                      > > > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ
                                      > > netrom
                                      > > > systems.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before
                                      > the
                                      > > > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of
                                      > > talking
                                      > > > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream
                                      > running
                                      > > > the newer version.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
                                      > > > selectively per port/link.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
                                      > > > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're
                                      > probably
                                      > > > looking at a mess.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > 73
                                      > > > Jeff
                                      > > > WA4ZKO
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                    • John Wiseman
                                      The documentation on locking routes and nodes via the BPQNODES file is in the DOS BPQ distribution, but was omitted from the BPQ32 docs. This feature has not
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Apr 28, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Message
                                        The documentation on locking routes and nodes via the BPQNODES file is in the DOS BPQ distribution, but was omitted from the BPQ32 docs.
                                         
                                        This feature has not been tested for about 15 years so check carefully that it is doing what you want!
                                         

                                            It is possible to edit the BPQNODES file. This provides a way of defining
                                            Route Qualities, etc. without changing BPQCFG.TXT, or using SYSOPH.
                                         
                                            The file format is: ( {} indicates optional entries - don't include the{})
                                         
                                            ROUTE ADD CALL P QUAL {!} {VIA DIGI1 {DIGI2}}
                                         
                                            where P is the port, QUAL the Quality, and the optional ! indicates a
                                            locked route. Up to 2 DIGIS may be specified.
                                         
                                            NODE ADD ALIAS:CALL CALL-1 P QUAL {!} {CALL-2 P QUAL {!} } {CALL-3 ....}
                                         
                                            where CALL-1, CALL-2, CALL-3 are up to 3 alternate routes, which must be
                                            defined (by ROUTES config entries or ROUTE ADD) before being used.
                                         
                                            Although locked nodes are allowed, I strongly recommend that they are used
                                            only in exceptional circumstances (eg when using a digi'ed route). Note
                                            also that a locked route to a node will be removed if the system finds 3
                                            higher quality routes to it.
                                         
                                        73,
                                        John
                                         
                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff - WA4ZKO
                                        Sent: 28 April 2010 19:17
                                        To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: [BPQ32] Re: BPQ32 Keepalives

                                         

                                        I know about locking a route, but how do we lock a node in? That could be darn handy in places!

                                        Be glad to help test the new version in the works.

                                        73
                                        Jeff
                                        WA4ZKO

                                        --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > The DOS and DE versions don't have any of the BPQ32 application support
                                        > stuff, or INP3. But the basic L2 and NETROM code is the same.
                                        >
                                        > No, IDLETIME isn't hard coded.
                                        >
                                        > If you turn off NODES broadcasts, you will have to lock both the Route
                                        > and the Nodes.
                                        >
                                        > I'm testing a version which allows the node keepalives to be turned off
                                        > - hopefully it will be released in the next day or two.
                                        >
                                        > 73,
                                        > John
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > -----Original Message-----
                                        > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                                        > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                                        > Sent: 28 April 2010 14:54
                                        > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                        > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: BPQ32 Keepalives
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Good deal, I have a site where using a dataengine would be more
                                        > practical. Just need to find one (and preferably a spare), but like most
                                        > of the "old but good" Kantronic's stuff....darn hard to find anymore.
                                        >
                                        > John is the DE BPQ code pretty much in sync feature/bug fix wise with
                                        > the BPQ32 codebase now? I assume that due to the limited hardware
                                        > resources in a DE that there is stuff in BPQ32 that will not "fit" into
                                        > the DE code. Good solid basic switch functionality that "just runs and
                                        > runs" is what I would need at this site...less I have to touch it...the
                                        > better ;-)
                                        >
                                        > Is IDLETIME hard coded to 900 in BPQ32 now? Seems like I tried working
                                        > with that a bit and nothing changed.
                                        >
                                        > John I'm thinking Brian (N1URO) never finished the netrom portion of
                                        > UROnode. I think his priorities were the FlexNet portion of it since
                                        > FlexNet is very dominant in the northeast USA networks. KD1ZD is kind of
                                        > unofficially maintaining it now. So far I think he's just been focusing
                                        > on getting it going on the more modern kernels. May have to have you two
                                        > hook up and debug what is going on between UROnode and BPQ32. Sooner or
                                        > later we'll probably have others wanting to mix those two together ;-)
                                        >
                                        > I'm going to try and go back to the new version of BPQ32 today. We've
                                        > got node broadcasts turned off and I think a locked route on both ends
                                        > might be the best workaround for now.
                                        >
                                        > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> com, "John
                                        > Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ > wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > I don't have a Data Engine, but I've tested with a DOS BPQ Node (which
                                        > > uses the same source code as the DE version), and the BPQ32 keepalive
                                        > > system doesn't cause any problem SO LONG AS the IDLETIME param on the
                                        > > DOS Node is at least as great as that of the BPQ32 node.
                                        > >
                                        > > This issue with IDLETIME would apply to other systems, so if you are
                                        > > having problems with links closing regularly, check the IDLETIME
                                        > > settings at each end.
                                        > >
                                        > > Jeff's problem with UROnode seems to be different - for some reason it
                                        > > is treating a connection from a node as if it is from a user. I don't
                                        > > know enough about linuxnode and it's derivatives to know if this is a
                                        > > configuration problem or a design feature.
                                        > >
                                        > > 73,
                                        > > John G8BPQ
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > -----Original Message-----
                                        > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> com
                                        > [mailto:BPQ32@ yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> com] On
                                        > Behalf Of
                                        > > James Wagner
                                        > > Sent: 27 April 2010 23:52
                                        > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> com
                                        > > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Greetings -
                                        > >
                                        > > Does anyone have a DataEngine running PBQ node software to verify
                                        > > whether or not there are any keep-alive with that?
                                        > >
                                        > > Jim Wagner
                                        > > KA7EHK
                                        > > Tangent, OR, USA
                                        > > G8BPQ-DE node LYONS
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > _____
                                        > >
                                        > > From: Jeff - WA4ZKO <wa4zko@>
                                        > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> com
                                        > > Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:16:11 PM
                                        > > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: My my what a mess
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > First off I think the idea in principle is a good one other than
                                        > adding
                                        > > chatter on RF and some folks (right or wrong) are not too crazy about
                                        > > that.
                                        > >
                                        > > I've heard that this causes some odd issues on TheNet networks, but
                                        > > haven't had a chance to verify it myself. Maybe just the older
                                        > versions
                                        > > of TheNet too? May have to spin up a TheNet node in earshot of a BPQ32
                                        > > node and see what happens.
                                        > >
                                        > > The the problem I've hit is I'm trying to do an AXIP (AXUPD to be
                                        > exact)
                                        > > link across the internet to a system running UROnode and JNOS. We can
                                        > > link and share node lists okay so far, admittedly we've only started
                                        > > testing it so we may hit other issues on down the road.
                                        > >
                                        > > All is fine till my BPQ32 node hears a nodes broadcast from the
                                        > URONode.
                                        > > The BPQ32 node takes that broadcast and adds the UROnode nodes fine.
                                        > Now
                                        > > the fun begins. Once BPQ32 hears the node broadcast it wants to open a
                                        > > node<>node link and hold it open for the keepalive functionality.
                                        > > Problem is UROnode takes this incoming "keepalive" connection and
                                        > thinks
                                        > > it's a user connect and logs the BPQ32 node in as if it's a user.
                                        > Things
                                        > > set there idle to a timeout (probably on UROnode's end) drops the
                                        > > connection. This process repeats every 15 minutes or so. Also looks
                                        > like
                                        > > the keepalive function is hardcoded to 900 (15 minutes) now?
                                        > >
                                        > > Since the test node is just basically serving as an AXIP hub and I
                                        > don't
                                        > > have to run the other modules on it (example BPQBBS) I tried another
                                        > > tactic to get around this. Looking through the change log I could see
                                        > > that the "keepalive" function was added into the Oct 2009 release of
                                        > > BPQ32. I had a copy of the Sept 2009 version of BPQ32 on hand, so I
                                        > > installed it. Bingo, all looked fine at first. BPQ32 to UROnode links,
                                        > > node broadcasts, and connections worked fine.
                                        > >
                                        > > But, one little gotcha started to be noticed....
                                        > >
                                        > > Watching things closely I could see that since the older version of
                                        > > BPQ32 isn't responding to the "keepalive" coming from downstream BPQ32
                                        > > nodes. On those nodes I could watch the obs counter start dropping
                                        > over
                                        > > a period of a few minutes as the keepalive's fail. If the timing is
                                        > > right and the downstream node does not get a fresh node broadcast in
                                        > > time....the upstream node falls out of the node list. This stays this
                                        > > way until a new/fresh node broadcast comes in from the upstream node
                                        > and
                                        > > "heals" things for awhile. Dependings on what timings are used, this
                                        > may
                                        > > heal itself quickly or it could be a few minutes.
                                        > >
                                        > > Very possible that some folks make have the issue and not even know it
                                        > > if they don't watch things closely. If you intermittently notice your
                                        > > adjacent nodes being gone one minute, back the next...you may be
                                        > seeing
                                        > > this in action.
                                        > >
                                        > > Maybe going to locked routes and aggressive node broadcast timings
                                        > would
                                        > > prevent this, but that comes with it's own share of potential gotchas
                                        > > when linking to other systems.
                                        > >
                                        > > End of the world? No since it sort of heals itself repeatedly. Then
                                        > > again it creates unexpected behavior if you try to let the autorouter
                                        > do
                                        > > it's thing.
                                        > >
                                        > > Probably a heck of a lot easier said than done, but a selective
                                        > approach
                                        > > to enabling/disabling it would be nice. Maybe a way of detecting if
                                        > the
                                        > > neighbor node is BPQ32 or not?
                                        > >
                                        > > Problem we face now if we gut the keepalive functionality
                                        > out...everyone
                                        > > needs to upgrade or else those on the previous versions will likely
                                        > hit
                                        > > the same problem at times?
                                        > >
                                        > > 73
                                        > > Jeff
                                        > > WA4ZKO
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> , "John
                                        > > Wiseman" <john.wiseman@ ...> wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Ok, I'll see if I can add a way to turn off the keepalive function.
                                        > > But
                                        > > > users are successfully linking bpq32 to xrouter xnet and snos nodes,
                                        > > so
                                        > > > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with my process
                                        > > for
                                        > > > holding links open to verify node-node connectivity.
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > John G8BPQ
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > -----Original Message-----
                                        > > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com>
                                        > > [mailto:BPQ32@ yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> ] On
                                        > > Behalf Of
                                        > > > Jeff - WA4ZKO
                                        > > > Sent: 27 April 2010 21:08
                                        > > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com>
                                        > > > Subject: [BPQ32] My my what a mess
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Amazing how much of a headache the simple addition of the
                                        > non-standard
                                        > > > netrom neighbor node polling can create when you link to non-BPQ
                                        > > netrom
                                        > > > systems.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > I took the test node back to the Sept 2009 version, the one before
                                        > the
                                        > > > polling/keepalive feature was added. Solves the compatibility of
                                        > > talking
                                        > > > to a UROnode system, but creates fallout on nodes down stream
                                        > running
                                        > > > the newer version.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Sure would be nice to be able to turn that polling off, at least
                                        > > > selectively per port/link.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > As long as you're doing BPQ to BPQ netrom links and running current
                                        > > > versions...all is fine. Go to a mixed environment and you're
                                        > probably
                                        > > > looking at a mess.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Just about ready to toss in the towel and give it up.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > 73
                                        > > > Jeff
                                        > > > WA4ZKO
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        >

                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.