On Nov 2, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net> wrote:
Is it just me or does the whole conversion of serial to modem to pots to voip back and forth there seem a little excessive?
So I had an idea. What about a software modem that natively talks VoIP.
Then I had a better idea. I'm going to look into writing something similar to Johnny's serial bridge program only making it a proper "modem" with enough of the AT command set to be able to dial numbers and then make "phone numbers" actually be IP+port somehow.
Am I nuts?
Yes, but I like the idea.
-brian
On Nov 2, 2012, at 8:53, Joe Ferraro <jferraro at gmail.com> wrote:
If someone in the states gets something going, let me know.. I'd like to do an initial test to see if I can connect over my voip lines (may have to do a little tweaking). I attempted to connect with Sampsa a few years ago, unsuccessfully; however, I'm almost certain it had to do with switching VOIP across the atlantic, as I've been somewhat successful connecting to C64 bbses in the US.
Worse case, I'll just buy a POTS line... but I prefer the free long-distance.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Fred <fcoffey at misernet.net> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Count me in for UUHecnet as well. Happen to have any dial in-capable systems Fred? I just got my modem working and you're in the same state and it might cut down on long distance. ;)
Modems? I've got modems ... I came from the days before all this high speed stuff.:) Let me see what I'd need to hook one up - however my Asterisk system is essentially in the way so an FXS card will probaby need to be purchased (they aren't that expensive, I have a card that will accept any four of FXS/FXO - only two are populated at the moment)
Fred
Is it just me or does the whole conversion of serial to modem to pots to voip back and forth there seem a little excessive?
So I had an idea. What about a software modem that natively talks VoIP.
Then I had a better idea. I'm going to look into writing something similar to Johnny's serial bridge program only making it a proper "modem" with enough of the AT command set to be able to dial numbers and then make "phone numbers" actually be IP+port somehow.
Am I nuts?
-brian
On Nov 2, 2012, at 8:53, Joe Ferraro <jferraro at gmail.com> wrote:
If someone in the states gets something going, let me know.. I'd like to do an initial test to see if I can connect over my voip lines (may have to do a little tweaking). I attempted to connect with Sampsa a few years ago, unsuccessfully; however, I'm almost certain it had to do with switching VOIP across the atlantic, as I've been somewhat successful connecting to C64 bbses in the US.
Worse case, I'll just buy a POTS line... but I prefer the free long-distance.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Fred <fcoffey at misernet.net> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Count me in for UUHecnet as well. Happen to have any dial in-capable systems Fred? I just got my modem working and you're in the same state and it might cut down on long distance. ;)
Modems? I've got modems ... I came from the days before all this high speed stuff.:) Let me see what I'd need to hook one up - however my Asterisk system is essentially in the way so an FXS card will probaby need to be purchased (they aren't that expensive, I have a card that will accept any four of FXS/FXO - only two are populated at the moment)
Fred
Joe Ferraro wrote:
however my Asterisk system is essentially in the way ..
You too? People think I'm nuts when I tell them my answering machine is a
Linux box...
A serious question, though - which codec are you using? ulaw, gsm, g729,
other ? The problem with using modems and VoIP is that all the codecs are
designed to compress voice and don't do well with modem tones. The
exception is ulaw/G711, which doesn't compress at all.
Bob
As to UUHECNET: if you're EMEA based, contact me for connection details.
If you're in the Americas, contact Steve Davidson.
If you're in the Asia-Pacific region, we haven't decided, me I guess.
Sampsa
On 1 Nov 2012, at 22:42, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On 1 Nov 2012, at 16:34, Fred <fcoffey at misernet.net> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Dave McGuire wrote:
I have a Usenet feed here. Very nearly a full feed, but no binaries.
I could forward it along if we do something like this.
Count me in as interested. (I am also part of the informal uuhec uucp network already established).
Count me in for UUHecnet as well. Happen to have any dial in-capable systems Fred? I just got my modem working and you're in the same state and it might cut down on long distance. ;)
Fred
We can borrow some of the ideas from AT&T Long Lines and have our own
hobbyist telecom grid.
.... shoulda bought up all those AT&T microwave relay stations while they
were available....
Bob
If someone in the states gets something going, let me know.. I'd like to do an initial test to see if I can connect over my voip lines (may have to do a little tweaking). I attempted to connect with Sampsa a few years ago, unsuccessfully; however, I'm almost certain it had to do with switching VOIP across the atlantic, as I've been somewhat successful connecting to C64 bbses in the US.
Worse case, I'll just buy a POTS line... but I prefer the free long-distance.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Fred <fcoffey at misernet.net> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Count me in for UUHecnet as well. Happen to have any dial in-capable systems Fred? I just got my modem working and you're in the same state and it might cut down on long distance. ;)
Modems? I've got modems ... I came from the days before all this high speed stuff.:) Let me see what I'd need to hook one up - however my Asterisk system is essentially in the way so an FXS card will probaby need to be purchased (they aren't that expensive, I have a card that will accept any four of FXS/FXO - only two are populated at the moment)
Fred
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Count me in for UUHecnet as well. Happen to have any dial in-capable systems Fred? I just got my modem working and you're in the same state and it might cut down on long distance. ;)
Modems? I've got modems ... I came from the days before all this high speed stuff.:) Let me see what I'd need to hook one up - however my Asterisk system is essentially in the way so an FXS card will probaby need to be purchased (they aren't that expensive, I have a card that will accept any four of FXS/FXO - only two are populated at the moment)
Fred
On 2012-11-02 02:23, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:12 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 11/01/2012 05:14 PM, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
Hey Johnny...this is probably my DECnet inexperience showing...but
when I try to access MIM from RSTS/E, it prompts me for a username
and password. Should it do that? I get right in (for file
operations) from VMS.
RSTS always prompts for user ID for interactive logins. It will then
prompt for a password unless the account you asked for is set not to
require a password.
On the other hand, DECnet objects that work in the context of some
user (like FAL) can be set to have a default user ID that is used
when no access control parameters are included in the connect.
Ahh ok, I get it. That sounds very familiar; I know I've read about
it before. So you're saying that FAL on MIM's end would be set up with
a default user ID, or I'd configure something within DECnet on my end to
pass a default ID?
The former. The receiving end (MIM) decides what the access rules on that end are.
True, but it's not that simple in the end. :-)
Since FAL do have a requirement for authentication of some sort (and I'm not willing to drop that), you need to present a user to RSX. VMS have this concept of a default user if none is provided, RSX do not have this default user concept.
So far, things are easy and obvious.
There is one more thing that relates here, and that is proxy information, which noone (but me) have mentioned so far. The source side of a DECnet connection can also pass on the user identification of the source process to the destination, and the destination side can map that remote user to any local user it wants to, thus getting the user identification for the local system that way instead of having to explicitly pass username and password in the connect request.
That is something of a shared responsibility between both sides, where both have to agree on doing this, and the destination must also have a mapping for that remote user to a local user in order for it to be accepted.
Now, I've set up a proxy user on MIM, which essentially maps *::* to the local user DECNET, thereby creating something pretty similar to a default account. But it do require that the connecting side sends proxy user information to MIM, or else it will not work.
But yes, in the end, the access rules are defined by the receiving end - MIM. But the sending side needs to provide information one way or another.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
From: Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com>
On 10/31/2012 03:34 PM, Sampsa Laine wrote:
I thought encryption and commercial messages were strictly verboten
on HAM stuff.
They are. So let's not encrypt stuff. And how much commercial data
flows across HECnet? ;)
I'd be much more concerned about the rules on swearing! I'd violate that
in a more or less continuous stream if I didn't know what I was typing was
going over the air...
This is a wonderfully bad idea -- I love it. Somewhere I have an old
DUP11 that I picked up 20+ years ago with the idea of using it for packet.
The AX.25 spec and a kit-built Flesher TU1200 are around here somewhere too ...
I really wish I'd moved on that project back when there would have been people
to talk to! (TNCs came along about ten seconds after I lost interest, natch -
all the name "Kantronics" means to me is the Rockhound!)
John Wilson, KC1P
D Bit
