Date   

Re: Allstarlink dvswitch raspberry pi 3 b+

Dennis Ramos
 

In fact, nodes can be link together by sending them in a conference.

Just a thought

Best regards

Dennis/ m0tfg


On 29 July 2018 23:22:41 BST, Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:


On 07/29/2018 06:20 PM, Dennis Ramos wrote:
Thanks for the reply Steve. I remember before computing power of an asterisk is based on a concurrent calls.

Anyway I just wonder if it is possible to have more than one dmr talkgroup or other digital mode by having additional node that link to those additional tg.
Yes, it can be done that way.

Furthermore, by disabling the macro *31999, manually connect(dtmf) the main node to node1, node2, node3 and so on.
Sure.

73

Dennis

On 29 July 2018 22:31:57 BST, Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
Dennis,
I can't directly answer your question, I think it would be worth a try. I can point you to this interesting article. https://medium.com/@ghalfacree/benchmarking-the-raspberry-pi-3-b-plus-44122cf3d806
Notice the changes in the networking.

73, Steve N4IRS

On 07/28/2018 03:20 PM, m0tfg@... wrote:
Does raspberry pi 3 B+ have enough computing power to be a hub/bridge that can handle 20 to 50 connected nodes?

Thanks very much guys for your support

73

Dennis



Re: Allstarlink dvswitch raspberry pi 3 b+

Steve N4IRS
 



On 07/29/2018 06:20 PM, Dennis Ramos wrote:
Thanks for the reply Steve. I remember before computing power of an asterisk is based on a concurrent calls.

Anyway I just wonder if it is possible to have more than one dmr talkgroup or other digital mode by having additional node that link to those additional tg.
Yes, it can be done that way.

Furthermore, by disabling the macro *31999, manually connect(dtmf) the main node to node1, node2, node3 and so on.
Sure.

73

Dennis

On 29 July 2018 22:31:57 BST, Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
Dennis,
I can't directly answer your question, I think it would be worth a try. I can point you to this interesting article. https://medium.com/@ghalfacree/benchmarking-the-raspberry-pi-3-b-plus-44122cf3d806
Notice the changes in the networking.

73, Steve N4IRS

On 07/28/2018 03:20 PM, m0tfg@... wrote:
Does raspberry pi 3 B+ have enough computing power to be a hub/bridge that can handle 20 to 50 connected nodes?

Thanks very much guys for your support

73

Dennis



Re: Allstarlink dvswitch raspberry pi 3 b+

Dennis Ramos
 

Thanks for the reply Steve. I remember before computing power of an asterisk is based on a concurrent calls.

Anyway I just wonder if it is possible to have more than one dmr talkgroup or other digital mode by having additional node that link to those additional tg.

Furthermore, by disabling the macro *31999, manually connect(dtmf) the main node to node1, node2, node3 and so on.

73

Dennis


On 29 July 2018 22:31:57 BST, Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
Dennis,
I can't directly answer your question, I think it would be worth a try. I can point you to this interesting article. https://medium.com/@ghalfacree/benchmarking-the-raspberry-pi-3-b-plus-44122cf3d806
Notice the changes in the networking.

73, Steve N4IRS

On 07/28/2018 03:20 PM, m0tfg@... wrote:
Does raspberry pi 3 B+ have enough computing power to be a hub/bridge that can handle 20 to 50 connected nodes?

Thanks very much guys for your support

73

Dennis


Re: Allstarlink dvswitch raspberry pi 3 b+

Steve N4IRS
 

Dennis,
I can't directly answer your question, I think it would be worth a try. I can point you to this interesting article. https://medium.com/@ghalfacree/benchmarking-the-raspberry-pi-3-b-plus-44122cf3d806
Notice the changes in the networking.

73, Steve N4IRS

On 07/28/2018 03:20 PM, m0tfg@... wrote:
Does raspberry pi 3 B+ have enough computing power to be a hub/bridge that can handle 20 to 50 connected nodes?

Thanks very much guys for your support

73

Dennis


Re: connection to master server "lost"

mark rosenberg
 

Ok will try that...we have a net tonight so the timing is good if that stops the creepy female computer voice hi hi

Thx 73

Mark

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018, 18:45 Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
it means that the BrandMeister loop detector thinks you are looping the TG and is trying to protect the network.
In Analog_Bridge.ini in the [AMBE_Audio] stanza:
Change:
minTxTimeMS = 2000 
To:
minTxTimeMS = 3000

Steve N4IRS 

On 07/29/2018 11:41 AM, mark rosenberg wrote:
According to Corey, he thinks the audio is saying "blocked"...so what does Blocked mean?


Re: connection to master server "lost"

Steve N4IRS
 

Actually, no. See my reply for wat is going on and how to resolve.

On 07/29/2018 12:14 PM, mark rosenberg wrote:
Ok...now we are getting somewhere.  Please explain the same bm ID on more than one device.  What i have here is a cloud server which is an asl to dmr bridge.  The dmr hotspot number is unique...so please explain.

Thanks

Mark

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018, 19:11 Peter M0NWI <peter-martin@...> wrote:

Have a search back in the list, it was well discussed recently.  I believe it relates to using the sam id on more devices so BM anti loopback kicks in.

Sent from Outlook
From: main@DVSwitch.groups.io <main@DVSwitch.groups.io> on behalf of mark rosenberg <4x1ks.mark@...>
Sent: 29 July 2018 16:41:38
To: main@DVSwitch.groups.io
Subject: Re: [DVSwitch] connection to master server "lost"
 
According to Corey, he thinks the audio is saying "blocked"...so what does Blocked mean?


Re: connection to master server "lost"

mark rosenberg
 

Ok...now we are getting somewhere.  Please explain the same bm ID on more than one device.  What i have here is a cloud server which is an asl to dmr bridge.  The dmr hotspot number is unique...so please explain.

Thanks

Mark

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018, 19:11 Peter M0NWI <peter-martin@...> wrote:

Have a search back in the list, it was well discussed recently.  I believe it relates to using the sam id on more devices so BM anti loopback kicks in.

Sent from Outlook
From: main@DVSwitch.groups.io <main@DVSwitch.groups.io> on behalf of mark rosenberg <4x1ks.mark@...>
Sent: 29 July 2018 16:41:38
To: main@DVSwitch.groups.io
Subject: Re: [DVSwitch] connection to master server "lost"
 
According to Corey, he thinks the audio is saying "blocked"...so what does Blocked mean?


Re: connection to master server "lost"

Peter M0NWI
 


Have a search back in the list, it was well discussed recently.  I believe it relates to using the sam id on more devices so BM anti loopback kicks in.

Sent from Outlook
From: main@DVSwitch.groups.io <main@DVSwitch.groups.io> on behalf of mark rosenberg <4x1ks.mark@...>
Sent: 29 July 2018 16:41:38
To: main@DVSwitch.groups.io
Subject: Re: [DVSwitch] connection to master server "lost"
 
According to Corey, he thinks the audio is saying "blocked"...so what does Blocked mean?


Re: connection to master server "lost"

Steve N4IRS
 

it means that the BrandMeister loop detector thinks you are looping the TG and is trying to protect the network.
In Analog_Bridge.ini in the [AMBE_Audio] stanza:
Change:
minTxTimeMS = 2000 
To:
minTxTimeMS = 3000

Steve N4IRS 

On 07/29/2018 11:41 AM, mark rosenberg wrote:
According to Corey, he thinks the audio is saying "blocked"...so what does Blocked mean?


Re: connection to master server "lost"

mark rosenberg
 

According to Corey, he thinks the audio is saying "blocked"...so what does Blocked mean?


connection to master server "lost"

mark rosenberg
 

What does it mean if I keep getting a repeated failed connection to the master server?  I set up an ASL to DMR Bridge.  Sometimes it works for days, and then suddenly it will refuse to maintain a steady connection to the master server in Amsterdam.  Instead a female voice transmits "LOST"  Then after minute or two the bridge will reconnect only to be disconnected again with "Lost"...this repeats over and over.

Any clues out there?

tnx 73

Mark


Re: Removing Validation from hblink.py master

Cort N0MJS <n0mjs@...>
 

Ok, I’m going to admit to having not looked at any of this for a long time. I've found a few discrepancies in what I’ve done over time

I have a question that needs answered by the stewards of HB Protocol:

Should the “repeater_id” field (bytes 11-14 of the DMRD), when a master is sending to a client, be the radio ID of the client, or the radio ID of the originating repeater? I’ve sorta treated it both ways and don’t apparently know the real answer.

What is that field really about? And is it the same in either direction? (client -> master and master -> client).


With that answered I can clean up this entire mess once and for all. I asked G4KLX a question about HBP once and the answer I got was read the (completely un-commended C++) source code of MMDVM and figure it out… Not helpful. Brandmeister does not approve of or want HBlink talking to their system… so not a good move either. Maybe the DMR+ guys are more help, but I don’t know them. Maybe one of you who is friendlier with BM or Jonathan can get us an answer?


On Jul 28, 2018, at 4:15 PM, Matthew 2E0SIP <groups.io@...> wrote:

Hi Cort,

Understood on the muddling of OSI layers - I get where you're coming from.

I think the easiest work around in that case is an option to rewrite the RADIO_ID for frames being sent to a Master to hblink's own Client RADIO_ID, as you suggested. 

Cheers


--
Cort Buffington
H: +1-785-813-1501
M: +1-785-865-7206






Re: Removing Validation from hblink.py master

Matthew 2E0SIP
 

Hi Cort,

Understood on the muddling of OSI layers - I get where you're coming from.

I think the easiest work around in that case is an option to rewrite the RADIO_ID for frames being sent to a Master to hblink's own Client RADIO_ID, as you suggested. 

Cheers


Re: Removing Validation from hblink.py master

Cort N0MJS <n0mjs@...>
 


To clarify, does this refer to removing the validation for the source "RADIO_ID" sent in a frame from client -> master


Yes, client side validation was made option with loose (thanks again for that)

If yes, I gave this some thought a while ago, and the conclusion I came to was the source validation doesn't need to be removed parse, but instead performed on the Source IP and Port rather than the Radio ID.
So instead of having a dictionary of RADIO_ID keys and their associated parameters and states, you have a dictionary of sockets. You should never have more than one client connecting from the same combination of port and IP address, so I think this should work.

You’re now using network layer information to authenticate the application layer. Yes, it will work. I’m reluctant because that breaks the ISO model. I know a lot (most? all?) don’t care about that, but I’m usually a bit of a stickler for following as many rules as possible.

I’m working on convincing myself this is ok.

I didn't get around to implementing this, so I could well be missing something.... Also, if hblink.py is adjusted to re-write the RADIO_ID to itself when sending to a master, the above is a moot point.

And it used to do that, and someone complained that a particular scenario didn’t work right. So that line is actually still in there and commented out.


Perhaps the solution is to make it option in the system configuration for the master? That I would be pretty happy to implement, even if a stop-gap.


Thanks all
Matthew


--
Cort Buffington
H: +1-785-813-1501
M: +1-785-865-7206






Re: Allstarlink dvswitch raspberry pi 3 b+

Mike KB8JNM
 

Nobody knows for sure what the limit is but i think you are over hopeful on that many streams.
Many things dependent in other things running in memory.
I would not 'count-on' more than 12 streams. 

... Mike/kb8jnm

Mike / Sent While Mobile

On Jul 28, 2018, at 3:20 PM, m0tfg@... wrote:

Does raspberry pi 3 B+ have enough computing power to be a hub/bridge that can handle 20 to 50 connected nodes?

Thanks very much guys for your support

73

Dennis


Re: Allstarlink dvswitch raspberry pi 3 b+

Dennis Ramos
 

Does raspberry pi 3 B+ have enough computing power to be a hub/bridge that can handle 20 to 50 connected nodes?

Thanks very much guys for your support

73

Dennis


Re: Removing Validation from hblink.py master

Matthew 2E0SIP
 

To clarify, does this refer to removing the validation for the source "RADIO_ID" sent in a frame from client -> master?

If yes, I gave this some thought a while ago, and the conclusion I came to was the source validation doesn't need to be removed parse, but instead performed on the Source IP and Port rather than the Radio ID.

So instead of having a dictionary of RADIO_ID keys and their associated parameters and states, you have a dictionary of sockets. You should never have more than one client connecting from the same combination of port and IP address, so I think this should work.

I didn't get around to implementing this, so I could well be missing something.... Also, if hblink.py is adjusted to re-write the RADIO_ID to itself when sending to a master, the above is a moot point.

Thanks all
Matthew


Re: Removing Validation from hblink.py master

Steve N4IRS
 

For me, hands down, ability for a single hblink.py master to “network” a group of repeaters tied to it.

On 07/28/2018 08:44 AM, Cort N0MJS via Groups.Io wrote:
Removing source validation from hblink.py master probably won’t work because of hblink.py master’s a ability to repeat back to a group of connected clients. These two features will have to be separated. Why? Because without source validation, there’s nothing to stop it from repeating the traffic it just received back to the source.

So, first question for the group:

What’s more important, the ability for a single hblink.py master to “network” a group of repeaters tied to it, or the elimination of source validation?

--
Cort Buffington
H: +1-785-813-1501
M: +1-785-865-7206







Re: Parrot with hb_confbridge.py

Steve N4IRS
 

I think just as we have IPSC_Bridge and HB_Bridge, I think OpenBridge_Bridge would be the way to go. (Well except for the name).

Steve

On 07/28/2018 08:42 AM, Cort N0MJS via Groups.Io wrote:
OpenBridge is based on home-brew repeater protocol… so going through IPSC_Bridge to HB_Bridge would be the appropriate way to use it.

Pushing it into DMRlink would mean full protocol translation in DMRlink itself, which is orthogonal to the point of “DVSwitch”.

On Jul 28, 2018, at 7:02 AM, Peter M0NWI <peter-martin@...> wrote:

That sounds interesting! 

Would the same code be able to able to be ported to DMRlink?  Be nice to have a more open way to trunk it to a bigger network.

73,
Peter

Sent from Outlook
From: main@DVSwitch.groups.io <main@DVSwitch.groups.io> on behalf of Cort N0MJS via Groups.Io <n0mjs@...>
Sent: 28 July 2018 12:09:56
To: main@DVSwitch.groups.io
Subject: Re: [DVSwitch] Parrot with hb_confbridge.py
 
OpenBridge is a work on progress for me. Not working yet, so not pushed to the hblink repo. 

On Jul 28, 2018, at 3:09 AM, Matthew 2E0SIP <groups.io@...> wrote:

Hi Mike,

To get the Parrot working as a "Master" with confbridge connecting as a client, either the confbridge needs to write the RADIO_ID, or the Parrot should not validate the ID.

I see some merit in both, depending on whether you want to see the last hope of the frame our the original source.

I guess it's a big job, but perhaps it's worth swapping to the OpenBridge format for linking applications?


Thanks

Matthew


--
Cort Buffington
H: +1-785-813-1501
M: +1-785-865-7206






--
Cort Buffington
H: +1-785-813-1501
M: +1-785-865-7206







Removing Validation from hblink.py master

Cort N0MJS <n0mjs@...>
 

Removing source validation from hblink.py master probably won’t work because of hblink.py master’s a ability to repeat back to a group of connected clients. These two features will have to be separated. Why? Because without source validation, there’s nothing to stop it from repeating the traffic it just received back to the source.

So, first question for the group:

What’s more important, the ability for a single hblink.py master to “network” a group of repeaters tied to it, or the elimination of source validation?

--
Cort Buffington
H: +1-785-813-1501
M: +1-785-865-7206

7901 - 7920 of 9882