Please wait...
I actually want to trasmit information over it, but I don't want the information to be seen by tools that normally look for TCP/UDP packets (not because I'm trying to be secret, but because I don't want to distract).
Hm, no, I hadn't thought of that.
But then, these are virtual machines. They all live inside one box, and need to communicate with each other. Using ham packet radio transmissions, while very novel, probably wouldn't work well for our needs.
May 23 2014 12:00pm from fleeb @uncnsrd (Uncensored)
Hm, no, I hadn't thought of that.
But then, these are virtual machines. They all live inside one box,
and need to communicate with each other. Using ham packet radio
transmissions, while very novel, probably wouldn't work well for our
needs.
AX.25 works over ethernet or WiFi as well as "ham radio." It's a protocol and it is "medium neutral."
Ah... I'll look into it, then. Whatever turns out to be the easiest thing to work with we could use. But, I'll need to make sure that it isn/t implemented over a TCP/IP stack or anything weird like that.... something pure.
I actually want to trasmit information over it, but I don't want the
information to be seen by tools that normally look for TCP/UDP packets
(not because I'm trying to be secret, but because I don't want to
distract).
Depending on how much control you have over the operating system implementation on each end, you could simply change the IP stack to use an Ethertype other than 0x0800 (or other than 0x86DD, if you're on IPv6). If the Ethertype is different, sniffer software will simply see frames for an unknown protocol and pass them through opaquely.
Oh, that's interesting. I have full control over the machines (they are virtual). I'll look into that, as that seems like the easiest option.
Running IPX frames over raw 802.3 was a naive decision on Novell's part.
Choosing to replace it with not one but *three* non-raw frame types was just plain stupid. DIX Ethernet (what Novell called "Ethernet_II") was, is, and always will be the correct frame type to use on an Ethernet segment. 802.2 SAP and SNAP were both atrocious.
Hmm... on Windows, changing the ethertype seems to be more involved. I haven't figured that out yet. There must be a way, though...
Hummm... I think I can do this in user-land with my own stack. Maybe. It's certainly interesting, getting into this area of networking.
BPQeth might be worth a go:
(Sorry, Hungarian, so I ran it through google translate) - original url buried in there somewhere:
Sounds like you could run the whole ax.25 stack (fun stuff!). Wish I was young again and could take part. I have not run the BPQether driver, but I have played around a bit with the rest of the ax.25 user-land stack a bit, so ping me if you find anything of interest or want to ask a lay-person some questions on usage or whatnot that might not be in google already.
Please post back here results of the fun as well, as I think it would fit the room description quite well.
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/AX25-HOWTO/x495.html
Look at 6.1.11
I need to give this a shot. Sounds like fun!
Mind if, if it's ax.25 over TCP/IP, I can't use it. That's one of the things I'm researching as I look over these things.
And from what I've seen, the only way I can get around using TCP/IP involves building a protocol driver for Windows. User-land stacks seem to go over TCP/IP in the end, which isn't helpful t ome.
BPQether is not ip ethernet framing 0x800, it is 0x08ff. Probably not good if you are routing as it most likely won't get routed properly.
So how does one manage to use such a stack in userland without having the operating system (in my case, Windows) complaining that it doesn't know anything about that framing (e.g. it can't build a socket for that framing)?
(looked over the link you sent)
Yep, Linux. Trivial, after a fashion, in Linux.
But for Windows, I need to take the source, and seriously rework some things to make it provide a protocol mini-filter that would work for Windows.
Which is tempting in some ways. I'd love to do it just for shits and giggles.
I have not tried this since the days of DOS, but BPQ32 might fit the bill:
http://www.cantab.net/users/john.wiseman/Documents/BPQ32.html
More specifically the driver here:
http://www.cantab.net/users/john.wiseman/Documents/BPQ%20Ethernet.htm
May 30 2014 2:19pm from ax25 @uncnsrd (Uncensored)
I have not tried this since the days of DOS, but BPQ32 might fit the
bill:
http://www.cantab.net/users/john.wiseman/Documents/BPQ32.html
More specifically the driver here:
http://www.cantab.net/users/john.wiseman/Documents/BPQ%20Ethernet.htm
And lest we forget, KA9Q 'NOS' may also be helpful... ;)
--K2NE