Date   

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


Re: Parrot with hb_confbridge.py

Cort N0MJS <n0mjs@...>
 

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






Re: Parrot with hb_confbridge.py

Peter M0NWI
 

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






Re: Parrot with hb_confbridge.py

Cort N0MJS <n0mjs@...>
 

parrot.py dones’t hae a choice, because if it’s a master, it’s hblink.py underneath that’s doing it.

The work is not hard… the consequences of the choice are. I’ll work on this in the next few days.

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

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

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






Re: Parrot with hb_confbridge.py

Cort N0MJS <n0mjs@...>
 

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






Forwarding GPS / SMS data to an external master

Matthew 2E0SIP
 

Hi All,

I'm curious if anyone has experimented with forwarding GPS / SMS data from a hblink application to an external master for additional processing?

Also, does anyone know if GPS messages are Acknowledged by the master / recipient? 

Cheers

Matthew
2E0SIP


Re: Parrot with hb_confbridge.py

Matthew 2E0SIP
 
Edited

Hi Mike,

To get the Parrot working as a "Master" with confbridge connecting as a client, either the confbridge needs to rewrite 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 hop of the frame or 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


Re: Parrot with hb_confbridge.py

Mike Zingman - N4IRR
 

Wow, I am getting old!  I did not even remember writing this code.  It was one of the first things I did for HB as an experiment.
I will look at the code and add the proper TG selection which will allow it to be used in the proper setting.  In addition, I will see if any other changes are needed for rewrite.

Mike


Re: Parrot with hb_confbridge.py

Cort N0MJS <n0mjs@...>
 

I stand corrected. I didn’t write the hb_parrot.py. It doesn’t have TGID selection built in like the IPSC/DMRlink version — then I stand with Matthew, 2E0SIP.

On Jul 26, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Cort N0MJS via Groups.Io <n0mjs@...> wrote:

Make parrot a client and connect it to master-1?


On Jul 26, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Jay Campbell KB9YYN <jay@...> wrote:

This is what I am trying to do but maybe I'm on the wrong track.
Does anyone have a comment on my approach or have a different way to add a "parrot" function to a master like a BrandMeister parrot?<PARROT _1_.svg>

Cort Buffington
785-865-7206


Re: Parrot with hb_confbridge.py

Matthew 2E0SIP
 

Hi Jay,

My previous comment still stands, I was waiting for one of the core DVSwitch team to weigh in before expanding.

It's been a while since I've played with this, but as far as I remember best way to configure this today, without any code changes, is to configure the Parrot as a client and run two "Master" instances within confbridge, one for MMDVM clients and one for the Parrot itself.  

I hope that helps,
Matthew
2E0SIP


Re: Parrot with hb_confbridge.py

Cort N0MJS <n0mjs@...>
 

Make parrot a client and connect it to master-1?


On Jul 26, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Jay Campbell KB9YYN <jay@...> wrote:

This is what I am trying to do but maybe I'm on the wrong track.
Does anyone have a comment on my approach or have a different way to add a "parrot" function to a master like a BrandMeister parrot?<PARROT _1_.svg>

7561 - 7580 of 9532