toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Just want to point out that you could use the newest code as a confbridge "hub", and connect the IPSC/HB bridge to that hub, and the clients can connect to that hub, then you have your ACL access. Clients then aren't directly connected to your bridge set. The extra layer doesn't adversely affect the communications latency as far as I can tell.
On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:43 PM, Jon K1IMD <lists@...
Yup... kinda what I though Cort.
Thank you for your response.
On 2/17/2019 14:15, Cort N0MJS via Groups.Io wrote:
No ACLs in the HB_Bridge branch.
No mix-and-match between branches
On Feb 17, 2019, at 12:40 PM, Jon K1IMD <lists@...
Humm looking this over I guess I did
not make a whole lot of sense.
Using the HB_Bridge branch the cfg file for hblink does
not make mention of ACL support. However, in the main
branch the cfg file for hblink DOES indicate ACL support.
Since we are running the HB_Bridge branch I assume that we
can't use ACLs? If we can, how so, as mixing and matching
branches will lead to a disaster. One need not ask I how
I know.. ;)
On 2/16/2019 20:27, Jon K1IMD
We are running a simple IPSC_Bridge<->HB_Bridge on a
Ubuntu PC to provide dongle connection to a c-Bridge.
Nothing fancy going on as the c-Bridge does the traffic
However, would like to use acl's to control/limit access
to the HB_Bridge to not overload the manger/port.
I don't see a place to implement this feature.