I am not a networking expert and Steve's ideas are beyond me. But, I have
built and maintained a 5 computer Writelog network setup at NK7U that has
endured many multi-op contests. During that time we have never had a single
problem that I would attribute to networking. I don't understand the
underlying technology. I just know it works. And, when you have a computer
crash as 2AM, swap in a replacement, bring it online and have it sync up the
logs and be ready to run in 5 minutes, then you can appreciate the power of
the Writelog network setup. It is just not the physical link but the
integration of the log management in a networked multi-op environment that
made me switch from CT 5 years ago. Never regretted it.
I have seen the other replies regarding network problems with Writlog during
field day. I wonder if they really are due to networking or just any of the
other usual field day gremlins that are part of the field day experience?
Scott/K7ZO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Gorecki" <ve3cwj@hotmail.com>
To: <WriteLog@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:55 AM
Subject: [WriteLog] Open Letter to Wayne - Networking
> With the power of Writelog and it's networking, I have a suggestion in
> improving the networking flexability of WL.
>
> We have all seen (and many have posted) issues around the networking of
WL,
> and with various O/S, we keep hitting those NetDDE stumbling blocks often
> enough that something needs to be looked at. After a successful Field Day
> here (with some minor network/RF problems), I think now is a good time to
> make some suggestions. These may have been made before (maybe not
> recently...), but I think it is worth another kick at the tires so to
speak.
>
> Now I know Wayne is busy enough, with updates and various new contests,
but
> the power of networking WL successfully is one of its strengths. Let's fix
> or get rid of the problems of passwords, NETDDE, etc. once and for all.
>
> What I am suggesting is to go back to basics and set up WL to use TCP/IP
> addressing and port numbers. I have seen many applications do this, and NT
> security is never an issue (because connection does not use MS security).
In
> fact, following this suggestion may even enable the internet logging of WL
> without the need for a web server running custom Java.
>
> Basically, I would suggest picking a free port number (high number such as
> in the 5000 range, 8000 range, whatever), and have WL connect by IP
address
> only. To register to accept network connections, all WL does is open the
> port and listen on it for incoming connections. The "Link to network" menu
> would require the destination IP address (and same fixed port number) to
> connect. No user ID required, no domain or workgroup model to worry about.
> Now the drawback to this is that we may need to set up fixed IP addresses
> for our WL machines. To overcome this, the "Register to accept network
> connections" menu could have a table of acceptable incoming IP addresses
or
> a range of addresses to accept. For example, register for network,
accepting
> incoming IP range of 192.168.1.100 to 192.168.1.150. By using the port
> number, this ensures that it is another WL computer that we are looking
for.
> Keep the same station ID setup (of course, for logging), but you could now
> drop the station names (no more Netbios). The WL station that is doing the
> "Link to Network" can specify an IP address, or a range of addresses to
scan
> and connect to. Imagine that, connecting to more than one WL station with
> one command (ie: scan range of 192.168.1.100 to 150 as above) and connect
to
> all if accepted.
>
> The benefit of using IP addresses (and port#), is that now we would be
able
> to network across the internet directly to other stations (club stations
> take note...) With proper DSL or cable router configuration, I could
connect
> my WL station to someone in another state (or province in my case). No
need
> for the complicated Tomcat web server setup (and hardware). Most ISPs will
> pass incoming port numbers over 1024 (some allow all). So, if WL could say
> "open port #5xxx and listen for any incoming WL connect", anyone else
> running WL could connect to my station. The WL "register to accept
network"
> menu with a list of "acceptable" addresses would prevent unwanted
> connections. (or use existing WL registration key to verify same callsign
> stations like those found in FD)
>
> Well, that is about it. I hope Wayne will consider this option carefully.
> Why, it would even open the possibility of non-MS O/S participating in a
WL
> network, if WL is ever ported to anything else (listening MAC and Linux
> users?). The main idea here is to ensure that WL would become free of MS
> security issues that will keep coming up, especially as new releases of
> Windows come out with even more security.
>
> Please send reply comments to this newsgroup. Thanks
>
> 73
> Steve
> VE3CWJ
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2
months
> FREE*
>
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
>
> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
> WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
>
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
|