I0OJJ > BAYBOX 23.08.18 00:04l 124 Lines 4775 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 44476_I0OJJ
Read: GUEST DK3UZ PE5YES DG8NGN DL1SEM
Subj: some replies...
Sent: 180822/2139z @:I0OJJ.ITA.EU [Rome] #:44478 $:44476_I0OJJ
>From firstname.lastname@example.org Wed Aug 22 23:39:53 2018
Received: from i0ojj.ampr.org by i0ojj.ampr.org (JNOS2.0k.3b) with SMTP
id AA44478 ; Wed, 22 Aug 2018 23:39:53 +0200
X-JNOS-User-Port: Uplink (I0OJJ on port hub) -> Sending message
Hi Hannes and all,
>Date: 22 Aug 18 15:48:00 GMT
>Subject: Re: FBB unproto lists of messages
hi gus, all the other readers,
i don't fully understand the requierement.
>1. two or more TCP ports (IAC) for inbound and
> outbound telnet forwarding;
today we have a bcm who is listening on some port for incoming telnet
connection, the outgoing destination port for forward connection is free
choiceable. For which purpose we need several more listen ports ?
Yes, the port situation is well explained on the
obcm boot up which follows; in particular we have
ONLY a "telnetd: initialised to port 4719" so, for
normal packet operation is sufficient, but, as
per my requirements, there should be the possibility
to initialize more then one port "(say four :)"
to ear on other ports beyond the actual default
OpenBCM V1.07b13-17-ga379 (Linux)(c) GNU GPL 1992-2013 F. Radlherr, DL8MBT et al.
OpenBCM is maintained by Markus Baumann, DH8YMB
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R working dir: '/home/obcm'
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R l1axip: 127.0.0.1 rxport=4866 txport=4867
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R l1axip: initialised to channel 0
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #L Start: V1.07b13-17-ga379 Linux mem 339204kB hd 5484MB
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R init_tnc: 200 ports
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R ax25k_init: Initializing Interface I0OJJ-10
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R ax25k_init: Kernel AX25 enabled
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R initfwdlist: 0 partners, 0 destinations
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R readtree: 0 bulletins
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R telnetd: initialised to port 4719
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R httpd: initialised to port 8080
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R ftpd: initialised to port 8021
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R sendmail: initialised to port 8025
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R popper: initialised to port 8110
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R nntpd: initialised to port 8119
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R radiod: radio connectivity disabled
22.08.18 20:51:40l SYSTEM: #R serv: initialised to port 8123
22.08.18 20:51:41l SYSTEM: #R mbcron: started
>2. at least one telnet port (no-IAC) to be
> compatible to interface the BPQs and old
> windoze FBBs (largerly used since today
> around the world) which are almost fully
> compatible ONLY with the same peers :)
isn't that not the same as 1) ??
what do the words IAC and no-IAC mean?
In simple terms, for any telnet session, there is one particular character
value you have to watch out for. The value 255 (0xff) is also known as the
IAC (interpret as command) byte. It's an escape character which allows for
the embedding of telnet commands into the session itself. This is detailed
in RFC 854 (telnet protocol specification), see the webpage link below :
As of today the LINFBB, OBCM and JNOS2 interpret the IAC byte as per the
RFC for the compressed part, i.e. in the code that does the actual FBB
compression (the yapp functions); where as BPQ, Winlink (CMS) and old
windoze FBB (and probably others) do not !
So, in brief the effect obtained results:
iac = enforce IAC during FBB compression.
noiac = treat IAC as regular data during FBB compression.
G8BPQ on describing its "Telnet Server for BPQ32 switch",
define this as a "TCP transparent connection, which is
very different than the full TELNET protocol".
So, this last, does not see the IAC as an escape character, it just
sees it (and command bytes that follow) as just plain old data.
The end result is that things 'break'.
for the third point, regarding winlink, i actually have to less background
for discussing here. i need first to read a bit. but the ideas and wishes
around this topics i heard a few times.
>From my point of view, many times we are obliged to run
several peaces of softwares for interfacing peculiar
resources, in this case the WL2K, so since it use the
B2F protocol (an expansion of the B1F) should be logic,
per se, to expand the actual protocol to gain this
----==-- _ 73, gustavo i0ojj/ir0aab
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /
A proud member of Italian LinuxTeam
Credo quia absurdum est (Tertullianus)
SICD project Rome Italy
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Read previous mail | Read next mail