Date: Thu, 4 Feb 93 04:30:10 PST
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <tcp-group@ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: TCP-Group-Errors@UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V93 #35
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Thu, 4 Feb 93 Volume 93 : Issue 35
Today's Topics:
Multi-Port RSPF
Packet via CAS-port (IBM/XT)..?
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu>.
Subscription requests to <TCP-Group-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 23:25:01 -0500 (EST)
From: MIKEBW@ids.net (Mike Bilow, <MIKEBW@ids.net>)
Subject: Multi-Port RSPF
To: kz1f@legent.com, tcp-group@ucsd.edu
The RSPF problem is not restricted to multi-homed hosts, where the host
itself may be directly reachable on more than one interface. The problem
can arise on a single-homed host where the route to it is acquired on more
than one interface. It is obviously a basic, desirable feature to have
any particular host reachable with more than one path, and this is what
makes fault tolerance in RSPF possible.
Nor is the problem strictly a failing of the protocol specification or
of the implementation, but is rather a consequence of the way that RSPF
interfaces to the existing IP routing code in NOS. Instability and
routing loops can occur if big-time kludges are not included in the RSPF
code, and these kludges sometime have bad side effects, such as routes
getting permanently locked and such.
I also don't see any reason to require that multi-homed hosts have a
different IP address for each home. The whole point of a dynamic routing
protocol is to eliminate these sorts of dependencies. In the ideal world,
IP address would not imply routinf, which could be automatically determined
and transparently maintained.
-- Mike Bilow, <mikebw@ids.net> (Internet)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 93 19:49:09 MET
From: OH2MKQ%PI8VNW@pa2aga.ampr.org
Subject: Packet via CAS-port (IBM/XT)..?
To: TCPAGA@pa2aga.ampr.org
Original from OH2MKQ to IBM-XT@WW
Hi,
Since I herad ABT DIGICOM for C64 I taught why isn't there same kind of
software for the IBM/XT PC-computer..
So if somebody has lack of ideas what to do with "the Fist Mate", do this!
.consequently packet radio via the Casette-Port of IBM-PC!
.or any other mode you like...Just let me know when the interface is ready :)
73 es CUL de Janne, OH2MKQ @OH2BAW.FIN.EU (APlink Finland,NOT 8bit!)
P.S.
- 7bit..(SPEEDY!)...@OH2BAW.FIN.EU
- 8bit..(7+)........@OH2BAR.FIN.EU
+++ Forward ever, backward never +++
PLEASE reply to the list, NOT to the From: address
because this mail is sent through a one-way gateway!
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V93 #35
******************************
******************************