Date   
irlp and echolink mutually exclusive?

Craig, KM6LYW <craig@...>
 

I just took over an echoirlp installation, and the community claims that echolink users are kicked off if an irlp user joins in some manner.

Is irlp and echolink mutually exclusive on echoirlp systems?

If so, is there a way to disable irlp and retain echolink?   it seems they're inextricably linked through the bridge.   Would it be sufficient
to "unregister" our node from irlp?  if so, process for this?    

thanks!

-craig

Re: irlp and echolink mutually exclusive?

k9dc
 

Echolink and IRLP ARE mutually exclusive in EchoIRLP, but neither one kicks anyone off. If the node is on an Echolink call, it is busy to IRLP. Likewise if the node is on an IRLP call, it is busy to Echolink. But no one is bounced off.

EchoIRLP is a script that allows an IRLP node to make and receive calls from the Echolink network if it is idle. But it is on IRLP first and Echolink is a secondary function. It is also not IRLP.net software, so there is no support for it from the IRLP Team. But it usually works just fine.

You cannot disable IRLP and still have Echolink work. It uses the IRLP software entirely, and connects to a locally installed package that bridges the node into the EchoLink network. I suppose you could modify scripts to prevent the node from making IRLP calls, but would be quite painful. If you only want Echolink service, you should just perform a standard Echolink installation, using their software.

-k9dc

On Nov 8, 2019, at 17:18, Craig, KM6LYW <craig@...> wrote:

I just took over an echoirlp installation, and the community claims that echolink users are kicked off if an irlp user joins in some manner.

Is irlp and echolink mutually exclusive on echoirlp systems?

If so, is there a way to disable irlp and retain echolink? it seems they're inextricably linked through the bridge. Would it be sufficient
to "unregister" our node from irlp? if so, process for this?

thanks!

-craig

Re: irlp and echolink mutually exclusive?

Craig, KM6LYW <craig@...>
 

GREAT info - thank you Dave!

I'll see if I can replicate the "kickoff".. just to be sure, since that's not the design behavior obviously.

Maybe un-register ourselves from irlp if the club officers want just echolink -- short term.  I couldn't
find an process to un-register, yet.   and firewalling mynetd seems kinda brutish.

thanks,
-craig

On 11/8/19 3:03 PM, k9dc wrote:
Echolink and IRLP ARE mutually exclusive in EchoIRLP, but neither one kicks anyone off. If the node is on an Echolink call, it is busy to IRLP. Likewise if the node is on an IRLP call, it is busy to Echolink. But no one is bounced off.

EchoIRLP is a script that allows an IRLP node to make and receive calls from the Echolink network if it is idle. But it is on IRLP first and Echolink is a secondary function. It is also not IRLP.net software, so there is no support for it from the IRLP Team. But it usually works just fine.

You cannot disable IRLP and still have Echolink work. It uses the IRLP software entirely, and connects to a locally installed package that bridges the node into the EchoLink network. I suppose you could modify scripts to prevent the node from making IRLP calls, but would be quite painful. If you only want Echolink service, you should just perform a standard Echolink installation, using their software.

-k9dc

On Nov 8, 2019, at 17:18, Craig, KM6LYW <craig@...> wrote:

I just took over an echoirlp installation, and the community claims that echolink users are kicked off if an irlp user joins in some manner.

Is irlp and echolink mutually exclusive on echoirlp systems?

If so, is there a way to disable irlp and retain echolink? it seems they're inextricably linked through the bridge. Would it be sufficient
to "unregister" our node from irlp? if so, process for this?

thanks!

-craig

Re: irlp and echolink mutually exclusive?

k9dc
 

As I said before, you can NOT disable IRLP and have Echolink work. EchoIRLP requires a fully functional IRLP node to run. If you don’t want IRLP, shut it off and install the official issue Echolink software.

-k9dc

On Nov 8, 2019, at 18:08, Craig, KM6LYW <craig@...> wrote:

GREAT info - thank you Dave!

I'll see if I can replicate the "kickoff".. just to be sure, since that's not the design behavior obviously.

Maybe un-register ourselves from irlp if the club officers want just echolink -- short term. I couldn't
find an process to un-register, yet. and firewalling mynetd seems kinda brutish.

thanks,
-craig


On 11/8/19 3:03 PM, k9dc wrote:
Echolink and IRLP ARE mutually exclusive in EchoIRLP, but neither one kicks anyone off. If the node is on an Echolink call, it is busy to IRLP. Likewise if the node is on an IRLP call, it is busy to Echolink. But no one is bounced off.

EchoIRLP is a script that allows an IRLP node to make and receive calls from the Echolink network if it is idle. But it is on IRLP first and Echolink is a secondary function. It is also not IRLP.net software, so there is no support for it from the IRLP Team. But it usually works just fine.

You cannot disable IRLP and still have Echolink work. It uses the IRLP software entirely, and connects to a locally installed package that bridges the node into the EchoLink network. I suppose you could modify scripts to prevent the node from making IRLP calls, but would be quite painful. If you only want Echolink service, you should just perform a standard Echolink installation, using their software.

-k9dc

Re: irlp and echolink mutually exclusive?

Craig, KM6LYW <craig@...>
 

okay, understood, i'll make that an option for the trustees.

Ideally i'll see to it that irlp and echolink don't bump people off as reported....

thanks!

-craig

Re: irlp and echolink mutually exclusive?

k9dc
 

First of all, I am not an expert in EchoIRLP. But the way echolink calls works with EchoIRLP installed, is an incoming Echolink call first establishes a connection to the theBridge installed on your node. Thebridge then makes a call to localhost (same machine) IRLP. If IRLP is busy, IRLP will refuse the call and theBridge dumps the echolink portion of the call with a “node is connected to” message. It will not allow new calls to be established, if the node is already connected somewhere else. Thats all.

Echolink and IRLP calls ARE mutually exclusive, that is how the product is designed to work. But a new incoming call will not tear down a call that is already fully established.

One of the differences for Echolink users is that IRLP nodes do not support any form of conferencing or multiple connections. The standard echolink software simply conferences many folks together if multiple stations connect to the same node. IRLP OTOH, conferencing is part of the network in the form of reflectors. Regular Echolink users are not used to the concept of “busy”.

If you want to join together the second (or more) callers, you need to install the official issue Echolink package. IRLP and EchoIRLP simply does not do that. Never has, and probably never will.

-k9dc

On Nov 8, 2019, at 19:12, Craig, KM6LYW <craig@...> wrote:

okay, understood, i'll make that an option for the trustees.

Ideally i'll see to it that irlp and echolink don't bump people off as reported....

thanks!

-craig

Re: irlp and echolink mutually exclusive?

 

On 09/11/19 12:56, k9dc wrote:
One of the differences for Echolink users is that IRLP nodes do not support any form of conferencing or multiple connections. The standard echolink software simply conferences many folks together if multiple stations connect to the same node. IRLP OTOH, conferencing is part of the network in the form of reflectors. Regular Echolink users are not used to the concept of “busy”.

If you want to join together the second (or more) callers, you need to install the official issue Echolink package. IRLP and EchoIRLP simply does not do that. Never has, and probably never will.
Dave, that's actually not correct.  EchoIRLP does support multiple
connections, in principle, and in the early years, they were supported
in actuality - the scripting and configuration still have that support
to this day.  However, a change made to the Echolink authentication
servers that prevented people setting up "unofficial" conference servers
using -L and -R callsigns, had the side effect of preventing EchoIRLP
nodes from being able to accept multiple connections (they use the same
software for Echolink functionality).  There is a way around this issue
by using alternative software.  Some work has been done on this by
others, but I'm not sure of the current status.

--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: irlp and echolink mutually exclusive?

k9dc
 

Tony,
Yup, I knew that. But IIRC, the default installation setup allows for only one. Apparently their robot goes through the network and finds nodes with the conference set to values above 2, and removes them from the network. Forcing them to pay the fee to have a real *conference*.

I could be wrong about that, but that is my recollection. My point for this thread being, if you want full EchoLink functionality and not just an add-on trick for your IRLP node, you are much better off using the true EchoLink package and staying consistent with EchoLink policies.

-k9dc

On Nov 9, 2019, at 04:14, Tony Langdon <@vk3jed> wrote:

Dave, that's actually not correct. EchoIRLP does support multiple
connections, in principle, and in the early years, they were supported
in actuality - the scripting and configuration still have that support
to this day. However, a change made to the Echolink authentication
servers that prevented people setting up "unofficial" conference servers
using -L and -R callsigns, had the side effect of preventing EchoIRLP
nodes from being able to accept multiple connections (they use the same
software for Echolink functionality). There is a way around this issue
by using alternative software. Some work has been done on this by
others, but I'm not sure of the current status.

--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: irlp and echolink mutually exclusive?

Ted VE3TRQ
 

If you want to join together the second (or more) callers, you need to install the official issue Echolink package. IRLP and EchoIRLP simply does not do that. Never has, and probably never will.
Not quite true. For sure, IRLP only allows a single connection, but the EchoLink connection side will allow as many simultaneous connections as your network and your hardware will allow. And as you have configured in the EchoLink configuration. By default, this is set to “2”, so a single user connection is allowed (the connected repeater counts as “1”).

Ted VE3TRQ
Nodes 2403/2404

Re: irlp and echolink mutually exclusive?

k9dc
 

Except that Echolink policy does not allow theBridge to be installed (what EchoIRLP uses) allowing more than 2 to be configured unless you PAY them to run a conference server. They actively scan the network looking for machines configured incorrectly, and block them.

-k9dc

On Nov 9, 2019, at 09:30, Ted VE3TRQ <ve3trq@...> wrote:
Not quite true. For sure, IRLP only allows a single connection, but the EchoLink connection side will allow as many simultaneous connections as your network and your hardware will allow. And as you have configured in the EchoLink configuration. By default, this is set to “2”, so a single user connection is allowed (the connected repeater counts as “1”).

Ted VE3TRQ
Nodes 2403/2404

Pi SD Card Full

Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA)
 

I was just trying to change the time for a cron today and when I tried to save it, it kept saying the SD card was full. I can't imagine that being the case. I even went through and deleted some things to free up space and that didn't help. Here is what I found:

Filesystem     1K-blocks        Used          Available Use%       Mounted on
rootfs           7425512          7201316         0                                 100% /
/dev/root    7425512          7201316         0                                 100% /
devtmpfs       470416                        0        470416                          0% /dev
tmpfs                94944                    276       94668                             1% /run
tmpfs                   5120                       0           5120                           0% /run/lock
tmpfs               189880                       0      189880                           0% /run/shm
/dev/mmcblk0p1  57288        31736        25552                          56% /boot

Any ideas? Has my node been hacked? Just wondering what to do.

Mick - W7CAT
Node 3464

--

Re: Pi SD Card Full

Nosey Nick VA3NNW
 

"100% /" looks pretty full to me   :-(

I'm going to guess, from the numbers, this is probably about an 8GB SD card?

My entire pirlp system takes up about 1.5GB though, so something has
filled your space for sure, it's PLAUSIBLE you've been hacked but my
first guess would be a rogue / runaway logfile or something. My
favourite command in these circumstances:

sudo du -ax / | sort -nr | less

"sudo" will run as root (to be able to see ALL the files regardless of
permissions) "du" will tell you how much disk is used. "-a" means all
files+dirs, "-x" means "stay on this filesystem" (don't wander into the
/dev, /run, etc). "-ax" combines them. "/" is the root filesystem (the
one that's full) "| sort" takes the output of the above and feeds it to
the input of a sort. "-nr" is "numeric, reverse" (so bigger numbers
first). "| less" then means "gimme the results one page at a time".

... the upshot of which is, it should show you what the biggest files
and dirs are on your root filesystem. You'll still have to use manual
judgement about what might be safe to delete or uninstall, but it's a
good starting point. If you're not sure about what's safe to
delete/uninstall, copy and paste the first few screenfulls to me
(off-list) and I'll see if I can spot anything that looks "obviously wrong".

If "sudo" doesn't work, try logging in as root directly, and/or at least
running it as yourself, without the "sudo" and hope you can still see
most of the files/dirs:

du -ax / | sort -nr | less

Good luck!
Nick VA3NNW

Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA) wrote:


I was just trying to change the time for a cron today and when I tried
to save it, it kept saying the SD card was full. I can't imagine that
being the case. I even went through and deleted some things to free up
space and that didn't help. Here is what I found:

Filesystem     1K-blocks        Used          Available Use%      
Mounted on
rootfs           7425512          7201316         0                
                100% /
/dev/root    7425512          7201316         0                    
            100% /
devtmpfs       470416                        0        470416          
               0% /dev
tmpfs                94944                    276       94668      
                      1% /run
tmpfs                   5120                       0           5120  
                        0% /run/lock
tmpfs               189880                       0      189880      
                    0% /run/shm
/dev/mmcblk0p1  57288        31736        25552                     
    56% /boot

Any ideas? Has my node been hacked? Just wondering what to do.

Mick - W7CAT
Node 3464
--
"Nosey" Nick Waterman, VA3NNW/G7RZQ, K2 #5209.
use Std::Disclaimer; sig@...
SYSTEM ALERT #0.998 System Error : "Intel Inside"

Re: Node 7490 not connecting to reflectors

ai6bx <ai6bx@...>
 

IP for question 3 was above as 72.132.11.23. I found the source of the problem with another gateway on the mesh network at very close to the same link quality. I made changes on the network routing to resolve and all seems good now,

Re: Node 7490 not connecting to reflectors

k9dc
 

I am pretty sure your node is still not working. You are now (0800 eastern, Sunday) flipping between 72.132.16.199 and 47.156.178.150, neither one works.

-k9dc

On Nov 10, 2019, at 01:25, ai6bx <ai6bx@...> wrote:

IP for question 3 was above as 72.132.11.23. I found the source of the problem with another gateway on the mesh network at very close to the same link quality. I made changes on the network routing to resolve and all seems good now,

Xplornet

bobgau57
 

I am(was) using NetSet wifi on my node until they were bought out by Xplornet, still the wifi system, but now all ports are showing as filtered and they seem unwilling to resolve the  issue, the tech guy told me if I was unhappy to feel free to cancel my account. Just wondering if anyone else is using Xplornet to connect their node. Thanks
Bob
VA4BG

Re: Xplornet

k9dc
 


I don’t know anything about Xplornet, but might IRLP VPN help with your problem?

-k9dc


On Nov 11, 2019, at 20:58, bobgau57 <bobgau@...> wrote:

I am(was) using NetSet wifi on my node until they were bought out by Xplornet, still the wifi system, but now all ports are showing as filtered and they seem unwilling to resolve the  issue, the tech guy told me if I was unhappy to feel free to cancel my account. Just wondering if anyone else is using Xplornet to connect their node. Thanks
Bob
VA4BG

Yaesu FTM-100DR digital radio as an IRLP node - confirmed

Craig - K1BDX - Node 8724
 

We just confirmed this week that you can indeed hook up a Yaesu
FTM-100DR digital radio to an irlp node. The ten pin connector on the
back of the radio has active analog audio interfaces as well as PTT
and COS even when the radio is in the digital mode.

Nice going, Yaesu!

Here is a link to the wiring diagram for a nano node.

http://experimental.irlp.net/IRLP_Projects/Yaesu_FTM-100DR_cable_diagram2.png

If you wanted to use David Cameron's Pi node instead, it looks like
only one pin is different on the 9 pin connector. (move the brown wire
from pin 1 to pin 9 on the pi interface)

Re: Xplornet

bobgau57
 

thanks, will have to look into the vpn, still trying to work with xplornet but they don't seem to care about customers. 
impatient and rude best describes their tech support. 
VA4BG

Re: Xplornet

k9dc
 

That sounds pretty normal to me. Lucky you don't have to deal with Comcast or AT&T! LOL

IRLP VPN is free, all you need to do is request it from installs@ IRLP.net. The only requirement is that your node runs Debian. (does not work on CentOS or Redhat). See the FAQ in https://irlp.groups.io/g/IRLP/files/IRLP%20VPN%20Service

-k9dc

On Nov 12, 2019, at 08:29, bobgau57 <bobgau@...> wrote:

thanks, will have to look into the vpn, still trying to work with xplornet but they don't seem to care about customers.
impatient and rude best describes their tech support.
VA4BG

Re: Xplornet

bobgau57
 

the support was so good before xplornet took over, they couldn't seem to do enough for you, once the big money takes over the customer service is done for..but
just reading about the irlp vpn and noticed the bit about traffic through the vpn, all daily household internet would be through the same router the node is connected to.
would that be a problem?
va4bg