JNOS, Packet and More

----- Original Message -----
From: <maiko@

> Hi Bill,

> > This is pretty exciting.

> I think so :-)

I think even more so all the time. Might even get JNOS2 running with RF this afternoon. I'll start by putting it on the list.

> > to include other HF devices (legacy KAM, etc) ...
>
> The KAM is on my list, probably I'll try in a few weeks to get some work going on it.

We need to help you a bit.. Can't let you have all the fun yourself.

> > connectivity to ... the Winlink system.
>
> WinLink 2000 is an end user system. I don't think you're going to see people on BOATS, YACHTS, REMOTE MOUNTAIN TOPS, ETC running a JNOS client to interface to W2K. That's AirMail's job.

Yes. AirMail is the Applicance users appliance. If all one wants is to do their Email -- then Airmail is great. Heck - I'm slowly picking up on all that it can do. A pretty impressive program in it's own right. Built in mailbox, HF, Packet, etc. Nice job! I had a chat not two hours ago with a local user (running a Telpac_node server) telling me of the success had at a friends yesterday using Airmail to run messages through the server.

On the other hand if somebody wants to do more then basic Email; like tieing networks and technologies together (even your AXUDP work applies) then JNOS is going to be the widget making that possible.

> Honest question : Is there any point having a JNOS system forward with the Winlink 2000 network ? I'm thinking no, because my understanding is that W2K is an end user system for emergencies and traffic from *remote* parts of the world.

Winlink has become more then that with its adoption by the ARRL as the messaging system for ARES and NTS. It's now the blessed system for local message delivery (I.E. packet on VHF/UHF) So yes, connecting to it with our messaging systems will be a good and useful thing.

My assumption, which I hope to test soon, is that JNOS will directly forward to local users on winlink via TelPac nodes. It's that silly trick of having to prefix an Email address with SMTP: that may cause a minor bit of heart burn until we get it working.

> Now forwarding and simply being able to connect to W2K are two
> different things of course.
>
> Any comments on that ?

Probably answered above. Clients would 'connect', folks running Linux community packet servers would be the ones interested in 'forwarding'. > > I need to be clear on one thing, a disclaimer of sorts. I have> no intention (never have, never will) of competing with AirMail,> I mean really, JNOS and AirMail are two different things.

Yes. The purpose is different, but now overlapping. What you've done, and hasn't been widely recognized, is opened up the system to real experimentation, open development and much wider utilization.

All that is before we get a telpac server port squeezed into NOS... :-)

All of a sudden the golden child (winlink) has a step-brother (JNOS) that's smarter, stronger and better looking.

> My prime directive (if I may call it that) is to support the NOS users out there that want to continue to use NOS and keep up with some of the modern HF digital modes, and other stuff like IP over UDP tunneling, etc. That's what JNOS 2.0 is all about.

Make it so... Engage!

> Maiko

Bill - WA7NWP

> I have uploaded javAPRS 2.7b05 to http://www.aprs-is.net/javaprs and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/javaprs/files


2.7b05 is now running at http://www.nwaprs.net/

It's a good start. Thanks to Petes changes so I can get the stations location, I was able to add the smart link to Heaven's Above on the page. Click any station, mouse over the "Load Last Clicked" button and presto magic -- a web page of the next days Amateur Satellites for the given stations location.

With the magic of PHP and JavaScript, this little page is going to evolve nicely...

73,
Bill - WA7NWP

PS. Hmm. What next? Turning on Tracking and the PHP range circles would be good...

From NOSBBS as forwarded to SEATCP at WETNET

---

FYI.

This is pretty exciting. If we can leverage Maiko's work to include other HF devices (legacy
KAM, etc) then it opens up a whole new world of NOS/LINUX/IP connectivity to Amateur
Radio and the Winlink system. There's some great potential here.

Bill - WA7NWP

PS. There's a familiar call in there somewhere...

----- Original Message -----

To: <nos-bbs@lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:16 AM
Subject: [nos-bbs] JNOS to AirMail - critical patch to save hair pulling ...
Greetings all,

A critical update for the AirMail support. The experimental release from a few days ago will probably make most of you pull your hair out, so I strongly recommend to download this one new file :

http://www.langelaar.net/projects/jnos2/whatsup.html

Here is the result of the fixes I've made ...

This morning on 20 meters, 9 AM CST - what a awesome series of exchanges this morning. I think I got it right now. I did several forwards and reverse forwards this morning with VO1XC (AirMail) on the east coast, ironed out some key issues, no more *triggered* lockups, alot better results.

Conditions simply shined this morning too, a nice day to forward.

Plan on doing more testing in the afternoon with N0GQ (AirMail) and WU3V (FBB) on a frequency of 14.064.50 LSB (dial setting) with SCS PTC II Pro

PS : if any of you are tempted, please do NOT connect to VE4KLM, since my setup is not geared for server side.

Regards,
Maiko Langelaar / VE4KLM

--- From the "ARRL Volunteers, PRB-1 Help Midwestern Amateurs Get Tower Permits" story..
"This permit was issued in spite of a 100-plus neighbor signature 12-point petition to the city not to allow the tower, as well as the erection of approximately 75 neighbor lawn signs with 'NO RADIO TOWER' emblazoned across their faces," Siepmann told ARRL. "The signs were placed on lawns as far away as one mile from our home, which is in a quiet, mature and leafy subdivision in Wheaton." Representing Siepmann was ARRL Volunteer Counsel and well-known Amateur Radio antenna advocate Jim O'Connell, W9WU."
---

So, was this a win or a loss for Amateur Radio? Any time there are 100-plus annoyed neighbors, it sounds to me like it's a public relations disaster. As much as I like and appreciate big tall towers, there's an appropriate place for everything.

73,
Bill - WA7NWP

I was going to spend 10 minutes, maybe 20 max, setting up javAPRS again.

3 hours later....

That's the problem with this package. It's too easy to get carried away.

Even worse, it leads to little tweaks and wishes...

Pretty simple this time. I'm building a page that covers, in general the northwest. Everything is working fine. Too good. When I click on a station on the map, it shows up on the status line as expected. Then a second or two later, a new received station covers it up.

Short of turning off showNewStations (see - I did look in the docs) it would be nice to be able to move either the NewStations or standard status line to an alternate location. Either the top of the screen or maybe right adjusted on the bottom row would work

I've recently discovered PHP. It looks like it's going to make a very handy gui interface for JavAPRS. It should be much cleaner the the old PERL script I was originally using to provide more user control to the displayed page.

Thanks again to Pete and everybody for making this so cool.

73,
Bill - WA7NWP

.

Results received 51507 - Total CPU time - 41.198 years


1) n7ugg 21084 11.808 years 4 hr 54 min 21.0 sec Sat Jan 1 09:22:10 2005 United States
2) wa7qfr 8909 5.029 years 4 hr 56 min 41.0 sec Wed Jan 19 18:52:18 2005 United States
3) n7xy 5858 6.229 years 9 hr 18 min 51.1 sec Wed Jan 19 18:37:48 2005 United States
4) kd7qkl 4427 6.286 years 12 hr 26 min 22.1 sec Sun Dec 5 15:11:44 2004 United States
5) kc7igt 3516 2.102 years 5 hr 14 min 13.5 sec Wed Jan 19 18:37:34 2005 United States
6) ac7yy 1755 5393 hr 51 min 3 hr 04 min 24.3 sec Wed Jan 19 19:36:25 2005 United States
7) n7uqa 1638 1.781 years 9 hr 31 min 27.7 sec Sat Mar 1 19:24:55 2003 United States
8) n0fpf 1228 1.593 years 11 hr 21 min 49.3 sec Wed Jan 19 14:02:07 2005 United States
9) wa7nwp 850 1.347 years 13 hr 52 min 59.0 sec Mon Aug 23 04:28:08 2004 United States
10) n7ipb 614 5112 hr 58 min 8 hr 19 min 38.3 sec Mon Dec 6 16:41:01 2004 United States
11) k7ip 472 1.446 years 26 hr 49 min 50.2 sec Wed May 19 03:38:25 2004 United States
12) x 359 4206 hr 04 min 11 hr 42 min 57.9 sec Sat Apr 3 06:56:34 2004 United States
13) y 312 3554 hr 23 min 11 hr 23 min 32.2 sec Sat Nov 22 18:41:34 2003 United States
14) huso 270 5816 hr 43 min 21 hr 32 min 36.4 sec Tue Jan 18 02:20:25 2005 United States
15) wa7nwp-1 215 7257 hr 01 min 33 hr 45 min 13.0 sec Wed Jan 19 09:50:08 2005 United States

> As far as I know AIRMAIL only supports the TNC's listed in the SET UP
> window. I believe that Jim has to write drivers for each of the TNC's, so
> if you don't see your TNC as a choice in the setup window it probably is not
> supported in AIRMAIL. I don't think it is an issue whether the TNC is
> capable of operating in the KISS mode or not.

The magic of KISS is that it's standard across almost all TNC's. So if an application program (like AIRMAIL) supports KISS mode, then it will support most TNC's with no additional effort.

It's not a perfect solution. Basic KISS has handshake issues and doesn't provide "tight coupling" between the application and airwaves like a host mode solution.

My hope is that if AIRMAIL supports KISS, and since I've heard AIRMAIL runs via the WINE system on Linux, then it would be possible to tie AIRMAIL directly to the native AX25 packet system on a linux box. This is the same multi-client functionality that comes with AGWPE.

73,
Bill - WA7NWP

> Not to spoil everyone's fun. But I have to ask "Isn't NOS dead?" I get the feeling that there are some people who think NOS is some ancient relec that need to be preserved like CW.

I answered the same question by Phil/KA9Q a couple months ago. We all agree that for a system solution (gateways, etc) there are far better options.

But... It's still good for eduation, experimentation,and development, which is what we see going on here.

Best of all, it's fun to play with.

Bill

> > I had asked about coming up with some kind of HF/VHF/UHF network that can> work at least within a region or a state. Why couldn't this be developed by> the LinLink team instead of reinventing the wheel? The main thing is that it> would allow robust connections between ham stations in some kind of network> topology but the connections would usually be amateur radio RF.>

> What other system can do this? This does not seem to be one of the WL2K> strong points since WL2K is more focussed on e-mail for the served agencies.> Of course it would be OK if it went into the internet for the purpose of> sending and receiving e-mail, but I have no idea how you can implement this> without having a server like the WinLink 2000 system uses to act as the> internet access address point.

There is nothing to implement. It's all done and working. JNOS does it in a crude way. Linux does it with standard tools and techniques. Maybe commercial sites use the same Linux software (Google, etc...) that we can and do use. The technology is there. The problem is in the implementation. And the RF...

• It's a pain and a hassle to keep a Linux box running. It takes lots of time and effort
• There's no good interface for the most common client system (Windows.) SV2AGW-Packet Engine is the best there is and that's more complicated then needed.
• Speed is way too slow. There is no off the shelf 9k6 equipment. (Kenwood missed it with the D700) DStar has so-so speeds but it's implementation is "lacking" (Icom missed it.) There are other hacks but nothing solid and readily available.
  

Here's some things I think Linlink/Linux/xxx can do to contribute.

• Is there a *nix interface for the SCS Pactor III modem ?
  
• Is there a good way to efficiently transfer, on RF, a file with *nix? Even the RDFT that's the basis for Rick's SCAMP.. If so, we can tie it in to UUCP and bring standard Email and File Transfers to HF.
  
• We need an open SMTP/POP server written is some easily to modify script language like PERL. With that we can write interfaces to other systems such as old packet mailboxes or even Winlink gateways. (JNOS can do this but it's a lot of baggage for a single task.) This could be the interface between the real world Internet and any we hams can do on RF.
  
• If there was some serious interest, we could rebuild the AMPR.ORG network and do it using modern tools and technologies.

From Linlink


> Does anyone want to tell him about what (some) hams where doing in the late 80's and early 90's with Phil Karn's NOS?

Me. Me. Pick me. Please pick me...

Hi Walt & The group,



There seems to be a mistaken belief among hams that they will be able to recreate the Internet on the HF and VHF ham bands (WL2K)... just as soon as they find a power source to run their computers and radios, and get their antennas in the air. This is just plain BUNK!

Telpac is the Winlink gateway application that connects Packet Radio RF to the Winlink master station by the Internet. It's a "packet telneting" link.

Telpac_node is a similar application that runs on a Linux box with the AX25 packet system installed. It allows a Winlink Client (running Paclink or simple AX25 packet) to access the system through a Linux Internet gateway.

I have Telpac_node running at one of my stations so folks on two meters packet can access Winlink. Hmmm. How can that work since I don't have broadband at that QTH any more? Guess what I'm using for the full time Internet backhaul? Yup. Ham radio. TCP/IP on Packet from the linux box. The 9k6 connection via a REAL PACKET REPEATER isn't super fast but it's good enough to edit files with VI and it should easily handly the 1200 baud winlink traffic.

I don't care how wide you make the bandwidth, how high you make the baud rate ... there is no possibility of anyone putting something as common as one page of a "Google" query on my desktop by pushing it thru one of my ham radios! Just ain't gonna happen in any reasonable length of time. I will have long forgotten my problem or question by the time the data arrives.

Maybe 1200 would be too slow for this but not 9600. I'll do a Google search on the link this weekend just for grins.

There is absolutely NO NEED FOR PACKETED or ENCRYPTED messaging in EMERGENCY communications. Encrypted messages are antithetical to the very purpose of EMERGENCY communication.

Without "secure" communications we amateurs are playing second fiddle to the real world. The HSMM proposal before the FCC is essentially critical to the ongoing relevance of amateur communications... Well, maybe not that critical but it's a big thing.

Finally! Ham/Amateur Radio is a HOBBY. Not the "National Communications System of Last Resort" or the "National Information Salvation Corps". To think along these lines is sheer hubris and self promotion ... in short Bullshit!

While undoubtably we often overrate outselves, to totally write off the potential of the Amateur System would be unfair to both the operators and the available technology.

Bill - WA7NWP

# posted by Bill @ 4:08 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Scott Miller" http://www.opentrac.org/

> > Judging by all the other "9600-baud ready" equipment out there, the
> > answer would be "no".

> Still looking for a rig that WILL work. Surely there must be a mobile out
> there that costs under $400 and will do 9600 adequately....
> Scott> N1VG

I have a good lead. Looks cheaper then the D700.
It's recommended by folks that are using packet to move lots of data.

Bill - WA7NWP
http://www.jnos.org/

---

-----Original Message-----From: Bill Vodall - WA7NWP Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 18:48To: wl2kemcomm@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [wl2kemcomm] Does 9k6 on Kenwoods with external TNC work?

> Yes, I have used it in a demonstration and it works well, not as well as the
> TK series, but good enough for us "Amateurs."

TK series? Kenwoods? Any particual model number?

> BE SURE to put the menu baud> rate back from 9600 to 1200 for normal use.

Nah. 9600 is normal use... :-)

Thanks for the info.

Bill
---

The TK-760/TK-860 mobile brings a 32 channel radio to a compact size. And the simple and affordable 8 channel TK-762/TK-862 is another.

Steve, k4cjx

There's no such thing as a dumb question...

> 2. Part 97 buys you more Power, and power generally translates to range. Part 15 users are generally limited to 4 watts EIRP (+36 dbm). There That all said we sill have to live with the part 15 users in the band, not over powering them and good Ham practices call for minimum power needed to communicate.

I am a bit of heretic in this group. I can see few cases where the added power of Part 97 make up for the content and encryption restrictions of Part 15.

> I am however in favor of using our domain numbers, ampr.org, as opposed to private Non-Routable (rfc1918) IP numbers. We have them we should use them.

IP numbers mean nothing. Make it automatic and transparent for the users. I've heard far too many folks proudly exclaiming "I have an IP number" when they have never had nor will they ever have it on the air. It's a distraction. Use what works.

> Back in the KA9Q NOS days there were several Gateways that connected the 44 network to the Internet I don't know of any operating today.

There are still many. The big thing in legacy packet these days is Winlink. For the original gentleman asking, that's where the ARES and Emcomm activity is heading. Winlink doesn't have the functionality of a full *Nix community packet server/gateway but it's much easier to setup and run and it intergrates very well with 802.11/TCP technologies.

http://www.winlink.org

73,
Bill - WA7NWP

> You can originate e-mail "by hand" using TCP/IP and standard protocols
> without any Winlink voodoo. Heh.
>73 Larry VE6VQ/W7

Of course. Been doing that for many years. The point is, which is the voodoo:

WinLink:

sp smtp:seatcp@wetnet.net
Hello world
blah blah blah tacos blah blah
/ex

SMTP:

helo airdrie.gadallah.net
mail from:<larry@gadallah.com>
rcpt to:<wa7nwp@jnos.org>
data
blah blah blah empanadas blah blah
.

The real trick is how to craft the IP packets by hand using a TNC. Those 4 finger escape sequences for the CRC values get to be a real challenge.

TCP/IP (ala SMTP, etc) is 10 times better, stronger, more powerful, sexier, etc then an custom system like Winlink (in most areas - there are things Winlink2k can do that there are no alternatives for...)

TCP/IP is also 10 times harder to set up and keep running. That's the reason that Winlink is growing and native TCP/IP is dying in the ham world.

Bill

I sent my message ON RF. I'll bet the SMTP example wasn't.
That's the key - to use the RADIO. There are many ways to send
messages on RF and the important thing is to be able to - Winlink or
Linux Community Server or even *NOS BBS. We have the licenses
and the technology to do this -- but so few are ready. One of these
days Alaska is going to fall in the ocean or Rainier is going to let loose
with a big fart and then we'll wish we'd been prepared.

From a posting I made to APRSSIG:

> I appreciate the innovation, but its a waste of time. As Jim
> points out 9600 baud one-packet at a time with TXdelays
> barely even doubles throughput.

I let it go once... 9600 with real 9600 radios is not going to be using 500 millisecond TXdelays. There's no technical reason it can't use 50 or even 5 milliseconds. The Kantronics D4-10 could do that and it's something like 10 years old.

9600 done right is worth the effort. Try a real 9600 digital repeater someday and you be amazed what can be done. FWIW - Editing with VI works at 9k6 on packet... Not terribly responsive but it does work.

You want a SUPERLAN? Forget the 9k6 and UHF frequencies. Hook up a simple 2.4 GHz WiFi card, write a simple program to dump the APRS-IS feed as UDP packets and run the output through a $80 Hawking HSB-1 1/2 watt amplier.

<http://reviews.cnet.com/Hawking_HSB1_Wireless_Signal_Booster/4514-6461_7-31126286.html>

Spend another $80 on a 10 db onmi and you're flooding the region with APRS data. Speed is no longer an issue..

Bill - WA7NWP