Topics

HB_Bridge Migration


Jon K1IMD
 

Steve & Group,
With Cort's announcement of EOL of hblink will there be any migration of HB_Bridge with hblink3?

The reason I ask is that I (and many others I believe) we have a number of ISPC_Bridge<->HB_Bridge to connect mmdvm repeaters to c-Bridges.  In my case I am not doing any TGID translations or remapping presently and I assume that hblink should run fine for the foreseeable future.  However, it would be nice to take advantage of some of the features in hblink3 at some point in the future directly verses perhaps daisy chaining hblink<->hblink3.

73
Jon
K1IMD


JJ Cummings
 

Jon - I can't speak to the development (or migration if you will) of the Bridge branches over to python3 but I will say that you can simply replace the things that hblink is doing presently with hblink3 and interface those to your HB_Bridge instance.  We have been doing that here for quite a while without issue.

JJC

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:05 AM Jon K1IMD <lists@...> wrote:
Steve & Group,
With Cort's announcement of EOL of hblink will there be any migration of HB_Bridge with hblink3?

The reason I ask is that I (and many others I believe) we have a number of ISPC_Bridge<->HB_Bridge to connect mmdvm repeaters to c-Bridges.  In my case I am not doing any TGID translations or remapping presently and I assume that hblink should run fine for the foreseeable future.  However, it would be nice to take advantage of some of the features in hblink3 at some point in the future directly verses perhaps daisy chaining hblink<->hblink3.

73
Jon
K1IMD


Steve N4IRS
 

Jon,
Mike and I have discussed it somewhat. Keeping the ability to bridge IPSC <-> HB is still important.

Steve

On 1/24/2019 1:05 PM, Jon K1IMD wrote:
Steve & Group,
With Cort's announcement of EOL of hblink will there be any migration of HB_Bridge with hblink3?

The reason I ask is that I (and many others I believe) we have a number of ISPC_Bridge<->HB_Bridge to connect mmdvm repeaters to c-Bridges.  In my case I am not doing any TGID translations or remapping presently and I assume that hblink should run fine for the foreseeable future.  However, it would be nice to take advantage of some of the features in hblink3 at some point in the future directly verses perhaps daisy chaining hblink<->hblink3.

73
Jon
K1IMD



Jon K1IMD
 

JJC, that is interesting.  I wonder how you blended the two applications being that he run in different languages.

Steve, that sounds great!  I know many c-Bridge ops that support hotspot connections would like some of the new features and speed of Python3.  For what I do it does not matter that much except that hblink is going on life support.

73
Jon
K1IMD

On 1/24/2019 13:23, Steve N4IRS wrote:
Jon,
Mike and I have discussed it somewhat. Keeping the ability to bridge IPSC <-> HB is still important.

Steve

On 1/24/2019 1:05 PM, Jon K1IMD wrote:
Steve & Group,
With Cort's announcement of EOL of hblink will there be any migration of HB_Bridge with hblink3?

The reason I ask is that I (and many others I believe) we have a number of ISPC_Bridge<->HB_Bridge to connect mmdvm repeaters to c-Bridges.  In my case I am not doing any TGID translations or remapping presently and I assume that hblink should run fine for the foreseeable future.  However, it would be nice to take advantage of some of the features in hblink3 at some point in the future directly verses perhaps daisy chaining hblink<->hblink3.

73
Jon
K1IMD




Steve N4IRS
 

Jon,
Just so I'm up to speed, other then HB_Bridge <-> IPSC_Bridge What Python3 features is it missing?

Steve

On 1/24/2019 3:31 PM, Jon K1IMD wrote:
JJC, that is interesting.  I wonder how you blended the two applications being that he run in different languages.

Steve, that sounds great!  I know many c-Bridge ops that support hotspot connections would like some of the new features and speed of Python3.  For what I do it does not matter that much except that hblink is going on life support.

73
Jon
K1IMD

On 1/24/2019 13:23, Steve N4IRS wrote:
Jon,
Mike and I have discussed it somewhat. Keeping the ability to bridge IPSC <-> HB is still important.

Steve

On 1/24/2019 1:05 PM, Jon K1IMD wrote:
Steve & Group,
With Cort's announcement of EOL of hblink will there be any migration of HB_Bridge with hblink3?

The reason I ask is that I (and many others I believe) we have a number of ISPC_Bridge<->HB_Bridge to connect mmdvm repeaters to c-Bridges.  In my case I am not doing any TGID translations or remapping presently and I assume that hblink should run fine for the foreseeable future.  However, it would be nice to take advantage of some of the features in hblink3 at some point in the future directly verses perhaps daisy chaining hblink<->hblink3.

73
Jon
K1IMD





JJ Cummings
 

Python and Python3 can co-exist on the same system (as can pip and pip3) and of course then there is also always virtualenv (all things you can google for more info)

Sent from the iRoad

On Jan 24, 2019, at 13:31, Jon K1IMD <lists@...> wrote:

JJC, that is interesting.  I wonder how you blended the two applications being that he run in different languages.

Steve, that sounds great!  I know many c-Bridge ops that support hotspot connections would like some of the new features and speed of Python3.  For what I do it does not matter that much except that hblink is going on life support.

73
Jon
K1IMD

On 1/24/2019 13:23, Steve N4IRS wrote:
Jon,
Mike and I have discussed it somewhat. Keeping the ability to bridge IPSC <-> HB is still important.

Steve

On 1/24/2019 1:05 PM, Jon K1IMD wrote:
Steve & Group,
With Cort's announcement of EOL of hblink will there be any migration of HB_Bridge with hblink3?

The reason I ask is that I (and many others I believe) we have a number of ISPC_Bridge<->HB_Bridge to connect mmdvm repeaters to c-Bridges.  In my case I am not doing any TGID translations or remapping presently and I assume that hblink should run fine for the foreseeable future.  However, it would be nice to take advantage of some of the features in hblink3 at some point in the future directly verses perhaps daisy chaining hblink<->hblink3.

73
Jon
K1IMD




Cort N0MJS <n0mjs@...>
 

And while they’re different languages, the majority of the syntax is the same – meaning it only took a few hours to get hblink.py to run in python3 vs. python2… The devil is in the details though. While MOST of the syntax is the same, some of the changes required different syntax – especially with a few modules. Quite seriously there were times where one line (like calculating an HMAC and getting it into the right format) took 45 minutes.

On Jan 24, 2019, at 3:13 PM, JJ Cummings <cummingsj@...> wrote:

Python and Python3 can co-exist on the same system (as can pip and pip3) and of course then there is also always virtualenv (all things you can google for more info)

Sent from the iRoad

On Jan 24, 2019, at 13:31, Jon K1IMD <lists@...> wrote:

JJC, that is interesting.  I wonder how you blended the two applications being that he run in different languages.

Steve, that sounds great!  I know many c-Bridge ops that support hotspot connections would like some of the new features and speed of Python3.  For what I do it does not matter that much except that hblink is going on life support.

73
Jon
K1IMD

On 1/24/2019 13:23, Steve N4IRS wrote:
Jon,
Mike and I have discussed it somewhat. Keeping the ability to bridge IPSC <-> HB is still important.

Steve

On 1/24/2019 1:05 PM, Jon K1IMD wrote:
Steve & Group,
With Cort's announcement of EOL of hblink will there be any migration of HB_Bridge with hblink3?

The reason I ask is that I (and many others I believe) we have a number of ISPC_Bridge<->HB_Bridge to connect mmdvm repeaters to c-Bridges.  In my case I am not doing any TGID translations or remapping presently and I assume that hblink should run fine for the foreseeable future.  However, it would be nice to take advantage of some of the features in hblink3 at some point in the future directly verses perhaps daisy chaining hblink<->hblink3.

73
Jon
K1IMD




Cort Buffington
785-865-7206


Cort N0MJS <n0mjs@...>
 

I’m gonna jump in with Steve here to say that HB_Bridge <-> IPSC_Bridge really just works. There’s no need to do much with it. The things I’m working on in hblink3 are increases in performance primarily for large single-ended networks and bridging/routing: Things I’m still envisioning are voice telemetry when bridge actions are taken (really need someone to port the AllStar’s voice library into AMBE files and tell me how they’re packed and I’ll do the rest), a bridge_cache mechanism for faster packet processing (above the 2x speed up of P3 and asyncio) and FINALLY getting better logging/export for a real dashboard that’s worth having.

None of those things really benefit HB_Bridge <-> IPSC_Bridge.

On Jan 24, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:

Jon,
Just so I'm up to speed, other then HB_Bridge <-> IPSC_Bridge What Python3 features is it missing?

Steve

On 1/24/2019 3:31 PM, Jon K1IMD wrote:
JJC, that is interesting.  I wonder how you blended the two applications being that he run in different languages.

Steve, that sounds great!  I know many c-Bridge ops that support hotspot connections would like some of the new features and speed of Python3.  For what I do it does not matter that much except that hblink is going on life support.

73
Jon
K1IMD

On 1/24/2019 13:23, Steve N4IRS wrote:
Jon,
Mike and I have discussed it somewhat. Keeping the ability to bridge IPSC <-> HB is still important.

Steve

On 1/24/2019 1:05 PM, Jon K1IMD wrote:
Steve & Group,
With Cort's announcement of EOL of hblink will there be any migration of HB_Bridge with hblink3?

The reason I ask is that I (and many others I believe) we have a number of ISPC_Bridge<->HB_Bridge to connect mmdvm repeaters to c-Bridges.  In my case I am not doing any TGID translations or remapping presently and I assume that hblink should run fine for the foreseeable future.  However, it would be nice to take advantage of some of the features in hblink3 at some point in the future directly verses perhaps daisy chaining hblink<->hblink3.

73
Jon
K1IMD





Cort Buffington
785-865-7206