On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 05:03 PM, Lee Bengston wrote:

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 6:17 PM PacketCat Red PE1RRR <rrrtuby@...> wrote:

Hi Lee

Can you do an experiment to see if you can use 10200 outbound to my two nodes and see if they work. It is my limited understanding that when traversing NAT, the source port exiting the NAT is randomised, the destination is of course not. Theoretically unless BPQ is doing something unexpected, the two outbound links you make to two different designations on the same port would be treated as independent of each other.? Good experiment to try, but if you do try it make sure there’s traffic going through both at the same time.

If this works it could help simplify TCP-Slave setup for others.

It’s 100% certain the destination host must have a unique port open just for your link on their end. 10200 was the actual upper end of my range I had open for TCP links on -7, I’ve increased that to 10300 for the future.?

_.,

Great catch. I can use the same port to your -7? and -5. Both links are up. That does indeed simplify using AXTCP.? The map I posted can be used by multiple stations - contrary to what I said earlier.?

?

Lee K5DAT?

._,_

?

?

Nice one Lee, thanks for confirming- gonna write this down/up somewhere!?
Would love to see some pics of your new place in rural area, sounds like a nice move despite the internet situation, lots of greenery I hope :-)

73
Red