Why screw with the AX.25 configs?

Why screw with the AX.25 configs?

[Curt, WE7U]

So why, after sweating over a working config, does it become non-working after some time with Linux?

I've had a config that I've tweaked from time to time, but now it appears to work differently in OpenSuSE-11.3.

Specifically:

*) I used to be able to name an AX.25 port nearly anything I wanted.  For instance I have one called "aprs" and used to use one called "opentrac" also.  It appears now that the "aprs" port is forced to be called "ax0" in "ifconfig", plus something calls "ifup" which sends nasty-grams to /var/log/messages complaining about no config file.  This used to work fine near as I can recall, but perhaps there was always some cross-connect between "ax0" and "aprs"?  Where does the "ax0" come from?  Is it hard-coded into the driver now?  I'm not even using the stuff in /etc/sysconfig/ so "ifup" shouldn't be complaining about anything.

*) I used to set my route specifically with something like:

     sbin/route add -net 44.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 dev ax0

But now a route is automatically set for me when I bring up the port.  If I want to have multiple AX.25 ports (and I do), I must remove the auto-created route then create the more specific routes I need.  Seems like a waste of effort.

I just tried to create a new port called "tcp220", which resulted in a new port listed in "ifconfig" called "ax1", and a new route auto-set to use it.  I didn't have "ax1" anywhere in my configs at the time.

Xastir's AX.25 HOWTO wiki page, which I wrote and tested a while back, has "aprs" in the axports file but uses "ax0" in the route.  Confusing!  My current script to bring up the port has the route command commented out 'cuz a default one was being created for me and the manual one just errored-out.

What it looks like from my perspective:  A cross between at least two methods of configuring ports.  If we've migrated to a new method, that one should be documented and the old one should be disallowed.  If either method should still work, then _all_ of either method should still work.

I'd really like to know where the hard-coded ax0/ax1 stuff is getting brought in.  That's a big step backwards.  It's much nicer and easier to read to have names like "opentrac", "aprs", or "tcp220" while configuring or using the ports.

-- 
Curt, WE7U.        http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
The world DOES revolve around me:  I picked the coordinate system!"

Re: Why screw with the AX.25 configs?

[Curt, WE7U]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Curt, WE7U wrote:

> So why, after sweating over a working config, does it become non-working 
> after some time with Linux?
>
> I've had a config that I've tweaked from time to time, but now it appears to 
> work differently in OpenSuSE-11.3.
>
> Specifically:
>
> *) I used to be able to name an AX.25 port nearly anything I wanted.  For 
> instance I have one called "aprs" and used to use one called "opentrac" also. 
> It appears now that the "aprs" port is forced to be called "ax0" in 
> "ifconfig",

In the Xastir AX.25 HOWTO I see this:

     > /usr/sbin/kissattach /dev/ttyUSB0 aprs 44.24.250.250
     AX.25 port aprs bound to device ax0

Which shows that the KISS device is called "aprs", but the actual networking device underneath is "ax0".  I guess the above explains the "problem" I saw sufficiently, so ignore that bit of my previous message.

The queries about "ifup" and routes getting auto-set still stand though.

-- 
Curt, WE7U.        http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
U.S. Weather Alerts:  Firenet.us, port 14580, filter "t/n e/WE7U-WX"

Re: Why screw with the AX.25 configs?

[Ray Wells]

On 14/03/11 07:02, Curt, WE7U wrote:
>
> So why, after sweating over a working config, does it become non-working
> after some time with Linux?
>
> I've had a config that I've tweaked from time to time, but now it
> appears to work differently in OpenSuSE-11.3.
>
> Specifically:
>
> *) I used to be able to name an AX.25 port nearly anything I wanted. For
> instance I have one called "aprs" and used to use one called "opentrac"
> also. It appears now that the "aprs" port is forced to be called "ax0"
> in "ifconfig", plus something calls "ifup" which sends nasty-grams to
> /var/log/messages complaining about no config file. This used to work
> fine near as I can recall, but perhaps there was always some
> cross-connect between "ax0" and "aprs"? Where does the "ax0" come from?
> Is it hard-coded into the driver now? I'm not even using the stuff in
> /etc/sysconfig/ so "ifup" shouldn't be complaining about anything.
>
> *) I used to set my route specifically with something like:
>
> sbin/route add -net 44.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 dev ax0
>
> But now a route is automatically set for me when I bring up the port. If
> I want to have multiple AX.25 ports (and I do), I must remove the
> auto-created route then create the more specific routes I need. Seems
> like a waste of effort.
>
> I just tried to create a new port called "tcp220", which resulted in a
> new port listed in "ifconfig" called "ax1", and a new route auto-set to
> use it. I didn't have "ax1" anywhere in my configs at the time.
>
> Xastir's AX.25 HOWTO wiki page, which I wrote and tested a while back,
> has "aprs" in the axports file but uses "ax0" in the route. Confusing!
> My current script to bring up the port has the route command commented
> out 'cuz a default one was being created for me and the manual one just
> errored-out.
>
> What it looks like from my perspective: A cross between at least two
> methods of configuring ports. If we've migrated to a new method, that
> one should be documented and the old one should be disallowed. If either
> method should still work, then _all_ of either method should still work.
>
> I'd really like to know where the hard-coded ax0/ax1 stuff is getting
> brought in. That's a big step backwards. It's much nicer and easier to
> read to have names like "opentrac", "aprs", or "tcp220" while
> configuring or using the ports.
>

Curt,

Not trying to teach how to suck eggs.

As I recall, each new instance of creating an ax port increments its 
number by one, starting with ax0 then ax1, etc. The same applies for 
netrom - nr0, nr1 or Rose. This is reflected in ifconfig output.

The *convenient* port name is given in axports and applied in the 
kissattach line as per my examples below where the first line gives the 
selected name and the second references ax#

I've never known it to be any different to my current examples, as far 
back as kernel 2.0.29, when I started with Linux.

  echo -n " configure the ax0/5175 device"
         /usr/local/sbin/kissattach  /dev/ttyS0 5175 44.136.56.25 -m 255
         /sbin/ifconfig ax0 44.136.56.25 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 
44.136.56.255 arp
         #
         echo -n " configure the ax1/30m device"
         /usr/local/sbin/kissattach  /dev/ttyS1 30m 44.136.56.25 -m 255
         /sbin/ifconfig ax1 44.136.56.25 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 
44.136.56.255 arp
         #
         echo -n " configure the ax2/5825 device"
         /usr/local/sbin/kissattach  /dev/ttyUSB0 5825 44.136.56.25 -m 255
         /sbin/ifconfig ax2 44.136.56.25 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 
44.136.56.255 arp

There are two things that I'm doing differently that *may* be relevant;
1. I'm using Ubuntu based Mint 9 KDE (have used the same configs in 
vanilla Debian)

2. I use libax25, ax25-apps and ax25-tools sources from F6BVP because 
they contain fixes that AFAIK haven't been adopted in the official 
maintainers versions.

I'm about to set up kernel ax25 using packages on a VirtualBox guest 
using Mint LDXE. Maybe I'm about to strike your problem.

Ray vk2tv

Re: Why screw with the AX.25 configs?

[Thomas Osterried]

> 2. I use libax25, ax25-apps and ax25-tools sources from F6BVP
> because they contain fixes that AFAIK haven't been adopted in the
> official maintainers versions.

Please explain any compatibility issue.

73,
	- Thomas  dl9sau

Re: Why screw with the AX.25 configs?

[Ray Wells]

On 14/03/11 12:44, Thomas Osterried wrote:
>> 2. I use libax25, ax25-apps and ax25-tools sources from F6BVP
>> because they contain fixes that AFAIK haven't been adopted in the
>> official maintainers versions.
>
> Please explain any compatibility issue.
>
> 73,
> 	- Thomas  dl9sau
> --

Who mentioned compatibility issues?

I can only rely on exchanges in these forums and those exchanges suggest 
to me that some of Bernard's fixes (primarily as related to Rose/Fpac) 
haven't been adopted. I didn't say I was absolutely correct, I said AFAIK.

I'm not starting a version war, just stating, in explaining differences 
that might exist between my installation and that of Curt, that I use 
the F6BVP versions for the reason previously stated.

Ray vk2tv