Login: GUEST @ JH4XSY.14.JNET1.JPN.AS [Tsuchiura]
home | newest check | boards | help index | log | ps | userlogin | send sysop | slog | status forward | bcm news | users | version | remove cookieI0OJJ > SYSOP 17.05.26 20:52l 45 Lines 1599 Bytes #11 (0) @ WW BID : A5ND9_I0OJJ Subj: NetRom: something to re-think Path: JH4XSY<JE7YGF<LU4ECL<IW8PGT<IZ3LSV<I0OJJ Sent: 260517/1145z @:I0OJJ.ITA.EU [Rome] $:A5ND9_I0OJJ >From i0ojj%ir0eq@i0ojj.ampr.org Sun May 17 13:45:12 2026 Received: from i0ojj.ampr.org by i0ojj.ampr.org (JNOS2.0q.1) with SMTP id AA17059725 ; Sun, 17 May 2026 13:45:12 +0200 Message-Id: <17059723@i0ojj.ampr.org> >From: i0ojj%ir0eq.bbs@i0ojj.ampr.org X-JNOS-User-Port: Telnet (ir0eq @ 44.134.109.10) -> Sending message NetRom: something to re-think and standardize Hello everyone, It has been quite some time now since even the latest developments in packet radio software have stagnated. Consequently 窶蚤t least for me窶� there is nothing left to tinker with, so I have started conducting some experiments on my own. Last night, while running final tests between a JNOS2 node and a inBPQ node, I noticed that there is 窶罵et's say窶� only about 10 percent compatibility between them; in fact, only one out of every ten BPQ nodes attempted to connect, and even then, the connection was unstable. Although I haven't had the time to verify this fully 窶蚤nd thus lack a definitive proof窶� the same behavior would likely occur if the counter- part node were an XR node. These shortcomings do not appear particularly obvious because the vast majority of nodes connect *exclusively* to nodes of the same type, that is, BPQ to BPQ, XR to XR, JNOS to JNOS, and so on. In my opinion, a single, unified standard should be adopted, one that, if necessary, should be rewritten from scratch. -- 73 and ciao, gustavo i0ojj non multa, sed multum -- 73 and ciao, gustavo i0ojj SICD project Rome Italy Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur -- 73 and ciao, gustavo i0ojj non multa, sed multum
前のメール | 次のメール