Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 04:30:11 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 #68
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Fri, 12 Mar 93 Volume 93 : Issue 68
Today's Topics:
advanced-packet list is open for discussion (2 msgs)
BOF session for UK tcp-groupies ?
Failed mail
getting beaten up about having creating advanced-packet
Hidden transmitters, full- and half-duplex.
ka9q NOS and IBM Tokenring
Metro Based Addressed Plan (SIP/BIP)
Returned mail: Host unknown
RF Bits Where next?
Sanity check wanted...
tcp digest
WAMPES patch 01 available
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: Thu, 11 Mar 93 10:31:20 MST
From: "Marvin Match" <match@[128.110.44.31]>
Subject: advanced-packet list is open for discussion
To: barry@dgbt.doc.ca, tcp-group@ucsd.edu
On Wed, 10 Mar 93 17:54:03 EST, Barry McLarnon wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 93 23:08:20 -0800, Brian Kantor wrote:
>>
>> >Now that Bruce has the advanced-packet list running, I can stop running
>> >the advanced-packet list here, and since tcp-group no longer needs to
>> >exist, I can channel it into the usenet newsgroup rec.radio.amateur.packet.
>> >
>> >Any objections or comments?
>> > - Brian
>>
>> Do I see a range war brewing? I don't mean to speak for anyone but myself,
>> but it seems to me there are two groups of people that follow this
>> newsgroup. One clan wants to play TCP-IP using existing stuff beit
>> NOS or whatever the flavor-of-the-month is. Another clan see's the
>> deficiencies in running what is basically a set of protocols made for
>> wires on radios and wants to decide what's going to to be the latest-
>> and-greatest stuff next year.
>>
>> If the tchno-whizes move the discussions about how many bytes should be
>> allocated to the address header et. al. to another place, then that thread
>> needn't trouble the guy following this group that asks "I'm using <insert
>> version> NOS on <insert hardware description> and can't get <insert feature>
>> to work. What am I doing wrong?"
>
>It's deja vu all over again. A couple of years ago a discussion like this
>took place, and it was concluded at that time that 'how-to' stuff such as
>you just described did *not* belong in tcp-group, but should be directed to
>the packet radio list/r.r.r.p newsgroup. The charter of tcp-group at that
>time was reaffirmed as that of being the "amateur radio tcp/ip working group,
>and discussions of other issues regarding advanced amateur radio networking".
>In other words, issues that affected the ongoing development of NOS were
>appropriate for this group, but questions on how to use it should go elsewhere.
>Of course, as time went on, these guidelines were seldom stated explicitly,
>so the 'how-to' stuff crept back in.
>
OK. I was not around two years ago. I believe you may have hit the nail
squarely on the head. As a relative newcomer to this list I can tell you
that it's impossible to identify exactly what the group is for. It
appeared to me that the main purpose of this group was to discuss the
application of TCP-IP via radio using existing technology. In other words
if you have questions about running nos or BM then this is the place to
ask them. My mistake. It would appear that Bruce had the same view.
That's why he decided to relieve this group of traffic he didn't feel
belonged here (my opinion, I don't speak for Bruce).
>Last year, a good percentage of tcp-group traffic was becoming focused on
>discussion of developing and using NOS as a BBS which could take part in
>mail forwarding with conventional AX25 BBS's. Since this is a minority
>interest, and not exactly "advanced networking" :-), I decided to spin off
>a mailing list called nos-bbs to handle it, and hopely help keep the
>advanced techies from tuning out of tcp-group. The nos-bbs list has
>attracted quite a bit of the 'how-to' stuff too, but so far the SNR remains
>fairly high.
>
Tell me more about the nos-bbs list. I'd like to subscribe.
>More recently, some of us came to the conclusion that it would be a Good
>Thing to spin off yet another mailing list to deal with physical-layer
>issues like high-speed modems, modifying radios, etc. I still think this
>would be a pretty good idea.
>
I subscribed to a hs-modem mailing list a couple weeks ago. I recieved a
confirmation from the robot and one test distribution from the administrator.
Nothing more. What happened to this list?
>The recent discussion of "replacing AX25", channel access protocols, et al,
>on the other hand, fits squarely within the charter of tcp-group. I see no
>reason to create a new mailing list for it.
>
OK. Now that I understand tcp-group intentions I'll agree but please,
when a person fist finds this group he needs to be able to read a FAQ
or welcome or something indicating what's appropriate for this group.
If you look at the traffic on this group from the past month or so, not
knowing what the original intentions for this group were, you'll come
to the same conclusion I did. ;-)
>The only reservation I have about the tcp-group list is that its host is a
>busy one, and turnaround time tends to be rather long. Let's see how this
>one goes...
>
>> Marvin Match
>> KA7TPH
>
>Barry VE3JF
>
>--
>Barry McLarnon | Internet: barry@dgbt.doc.ca
>Communications Research Center | AMPRnet: barry@bbs.ve3jf.ampr.org
>Ottawa, Canada K2H 8S2 | PBBSnet: ve3jf@ve3jf.#eon.on.can
Marvin Match
KA7TPH
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 11:57:19 -0800
From: (Johan K. Reinalda) <johan@ECE.ORST.EDU>
Subject: advanced-packet list is open for discussion
To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
Pete writes:
> As I remember, the purpose of the tcp-group is/was the discussion of advanced
> packet / networking for the developers and others interested in the advanceme
> of the art. Correct me if I am wrong ! Maybe what should be done is to move t
> "how do I set up my autoexec.net" off to the packet list and let the
> development move on. I did not understand the reason of bruce@pixar:com
> setting up another list with the same purpose as the existing tcp-group. Lets
> keep the tcp-group setup as originally intended, a forum for the doers. Move
> the day-to-day FAQ "how do I" stuff to the packet list.
I absolutely agree; I don't understand either why there is yet another list
needed. Isn't the name of <tcp-group@ucsd.edu> 'Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group' ? At least that is what my copy of the digest says :-)
I don't think that excludes any link level issues...
I also think that some of the N in S/N should be moved, either to news
or a separate list... I don't think having a separate list to cut out some
discussions will help muc for that either; as soon as people find out thatt
list is where the 'guru's (or whatever you cvall them :-)' hang out, that
is where a lot of questions will go again...
73
Johan, WG7J
(PS. I will be on vacation for the next 2 weeks :-) )
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 12:12:57 GMT
From: agodwin@acorn.co.uk (Adrian Godwin)
Subject: BOF session for UK tcp-groupies ?
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Would any UK readers of this list be interested in attending an Advanced
Amateur Radio Networking BOF (birds of a feather) session at some convenient
rally ?
The imminent London rally prompted this idea, but that's too short notice
for many people, so I'll solicit suggestions for a more suitable event -
BARTG perhaps, or the RSGB's NEC show (are they bothering this year?).
If you want to meet at the London rally, that's possible too.
Contact me by 'phone or email, rather than through tcp-group.
-adrian
email : adrian@fangorn.demon.co.uk, agodwin@acorn.co.uk, agodwin@cix
phone : 0234 359773
Packet BBS : g7hwn@gb7khw
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 23:03:07 UTC
From: MAILER-DAEMON@wsu.n8fow.ampr.org (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Failed mail
To: wb9mjn@wsu.n8fow.ampr.org
===== transcript follows =====
While talking to sol.UVic.CA:
>>> DATA
<<< 550 <djc@sol.UVic.CA>... User unknown
===== Unsent message follows ====
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 22:46:15 UTC
Message-Id: <14181@wsu.n8fow.ampr.org>
From: wb9mjn@wsu.n8fow.ampr.org
To: samisen!djc@sol.UVic.CA
Subject: Re: Hidden transmitters, full- and half-duplex.
In-Reply-To: your message of Wed, 10 Mar 93 16:29:35 PST.
<9303110033.AA11409@sol.UVic.CA>
This is not a direct reply to Doug's message, just my two cents.
First off, allot of u guys need to read my paper, and N6GN s. N6GN s
paper was very similar to the material offered in college communications
classes. My paper deals with the realities of Ham Radio networking. Where
a system of maximun quality is more desirable over one of maximun thruput.
My personal opinion is that multi-access is so messy, that its use should
be limited to the only place u need to use it. That is, on the user access
channel. Otherwise, all other links should be single access, one station
talking to one other.
Full Duplex is not expensive. By the time u make a network that is going
to be able to talk to each of the sites neigbors, ur going to spend as
much on seperate antennas, feedline runs, and/or diplexors, as the most
gold plated single band duplexor, and most rugged single band antenna,
around. And lets not forget cavities. U need em anyway, unless u enjoy
replaceing the front end transistors of 1/3 of the network after each
ligthning storm/hurricane/Nor'easter, El-Nino season, or just plain
static laden cloud passes by. Don t Kiiiiiiid Yourselves!!!
Besides, i don t think there are radios around that can work without
getting desensed , from most high sites, without cavities. Even if
there were no other transmitters at the site.
And Full Duplex is not that exotic. How many of u use it everyday? How
many of u have cellular telephones? And these cellular phones just
do not cost thousands of dollars, now do they. And they put out 3
watts, without desensing, or blowing up the reciever front end, just
fine.
Don t get me wrong. There is a place for funky multi-access technigues.
On the user access channel, and when the transport goes by way of geo-
stationary satellites. But for terrestrial transport applicaiton,
lets all just Keep It Simple, Stupids, just use the 50 year old Full
Duplex technology, in a moderm way. This isn t magic, its just what
RF people do every day.........
73, Don. wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@wb9uus.bradley.edu
----- End of forwarded message -----
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 10:42:25 -0500
From: chk@alias.com (C. Harald Koch)
Subject: getting beaten up about having creating advanced-packet
To: bruce@pixar.com
Bruce Perens writes:
> I
> _don't_ have to ask anyone's permission to create advanced-packet, just
> as you don't have to post to or read the list if you don't like it.
I've been trying to stay out of the meta-discussion, but this statement
really annoyed me.
This attitude is the reason that UseNet is the morass of confusion and low
S/N that it is today. Fundamentally, a large group of people 'voting with
their feet' will produce Chaos. This is exactly what's happened on UseNet
over the years.
What's needed is a dedicated group of people keeping discussions organized.
This means reminding people about group/list charters, and *NOT* creating
groups "because I can", but rather "because they're necessary".
The Mailing list universe has always been quite organized, with good quality
discussions. I believe this is because it's difficult to create new mailing
lists, and so people think carefully before doing so. I'm afraid, however,
that with the advent of UNIX ListServer and similar software, the mailing
list world is going to degenerate the same way UseNet has.
I'm not saying that advanced-packet isn't necessary. I'm saying that the
attitude expressed by the quoted statement is not a reason for creating it.
--
Main's Law: For every | C. Harald Koch Alias Research, Inc. Toronto, ON
action, there is an equal | chk@alias.com (work-related mail)
and opposite goverment | chk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (permanent address)
program. | VE3TLA@VE3OY.#SCON.ON.CA.NA (AMPRNet)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 06:54:01 UTC
From: wb9mjn@wsu.n8fow.ampr.org
Subject: Hidden transmitters, full- and half-duplex.
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
----- Forwarded message -----
------------------------------
Date: 11 Mar 93 20:08:24 EDT
From: "Raul Zambrano" <ZAMBRANO@CSSC.NEWSCHOOL.EDU>
Subject: ka9q NOS and IBM Tokenring
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
We are running a Novell netwrok that uses IBM token ring cards. WE
are now trying to install KA9Q with NCSA on the same topology. We got
the packet drivers (clarkson) but could not get it to work.
Apparently, the IBM card is looking for some PC LAN (!!) SYS files.
Does anyone anyone has any expereince with this?
The ultimate goal is to have KA9Q talk to a SUN which is on an
ethernet segment of the LAN and goes to the to the Internet...
TIA,
Raul Zambrano
New School
New York
zambrano@cssc.newschool.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 10:47:22 -0500
From: chk@alias.com (C. Harald Koch)
Subject: Metro Based Addressed Plan (SIP/BIP)
To: ssampson@sabea-oc.af.mil (Steve Sampson)
> This really looks good. It really shows this guys on the ball!
Yep, this is why Steve Deering's SIP is one of the contenders to replace IP
in the Internet... "Steve Knows Networks".
--
Harald
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 18:33:54 EST
From: Mailer-Daemon@hub.eng.wayne.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
To: <wb9mjn@wsu.n8fow.ampr.org>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 <MUSCHINSKE%39A.decnet%scfb.chinalake.navy.mil@hub.eng.wayne.edu>... Host unknown
----- Unsent message follows -----
Return-Path: <wb9mjn@wsu.n8fow.ampr.org>
Received: from wsu.n8fow.ampr.org (HAMGATE.CC.WAYNE.EDU) by hub.eng.wayne.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA26077; Thu, 11 Mar 93 18:33:54 EST
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 23:15:05 UTC
Message-Id: <14186@wsu.n8fow.ampr.org>
From: wb9mjn@wsu.n8fow.ampr.org
To: MUSCHINSKE%39A.decnet@scfb.chinalake.navy.mil
Subject: Re: RF Bits Where next?
In-Reply-To: your message of 9 Mar 93 18:39:00 PST.
<9303100259.AA19549@ucsd.edu>
Hi Erich. All the stuff in ur block diagram exists in Ham network usage
today. The Gracillis PacketTEN stand-alone for example. It has 3 ports
that can go into the Megabaud, and 2 slower ports. The German Flexnet
network has been using 1.2 gig Full Duplex 9600 baud radio links, too.
We have a few simplex 9600 baud 1.2 gig links here, in the Chicago network,
too.
I disagree on linking being limited to 2.4 gigs and below. The best way
to do microwave linking is with a dual mode , dual banded feed horn. That
way a split banded full duplex is possible. This is not beyond Ham tech-
nology. For example, the 5.6 gig band Polar-plexer is of similar const-
ruction complexity to a dual mode / dual band feed horn. This horn would
act like a duplexor, isolating the rx from the tx power. This type of
thing is done on the commercial 4 and 6 Ghz frequencies. A few cavity
resonators would help too. This way, true full duplex, without BW spreading,
and the additional noise power this lets in, could be done. I personally
think that 1.2 gigs is going to be needed for high performance access,
because u can still do omni things on it.
The Down East Microwaves company has kits for both the 3.4 and 5.6 Ghz
ham bands. The tx from one, and rx from the other would be used to drive
a single horn. Ur right about power amps tho. DOn t have an easy answer
for that, but i was under the impression 1 watts could be done with
cheaper GaAS power devices. The transverter kits put out at least 10 mw.
Gunnplexors are good where unidirectional demand is high. Like to link
in a bbs or server. This is not real good for transport links, however.
And the things are damn expensive for the power levels to do the job.
at 30 miles ranges.
We really don t have all that 2.4 gig spectrum useable. Part of it is
the place where Microwave Ovens lurk, too.
73, Don wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@wb9uus.bradley.edu
----- End of forwarded message -----
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 06:55:16 UTC
From: wb9mjn@wsu.n8fow.ampr.org
Subject: RF Bits Where next?
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
----- Forwarded message -----
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 11:31:55 CST
From: kurt@cs.tamu.edu (Kurt Freiberger)
Subject: Sanity check wanted...
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
I ran into this last night....
Two guys running wg7j 1.04 with a digipeater between the two.
They each have an ax route of QST via DIGI.
A pings B. An ARP goes out to QST via DIGI. B responds with an ARP reply,
but it does not go out via DIGI. Should it not do this? If the ax route
table is not updated until after the ARP reply goes out, it should go out
the next time an ARP request comes across....
Scenario B:
Same setup, with A havin an ax route to B via DIGI, and B having an ax route
to A via DIGI. A pings B. ARP request goes out to QST via DIGI. B responds
with ARP reply NOT through DIGI.
Is it broke? Or should it work this way? I realize that the thrust was for
real IP rather than AX.25/digipeaters, but I always assumed that once a
"hardware address" was found, in the case of AX.25 encapsulation the ax route
table was consulted before it hit the air....
73/Kurt
---
% Kurt Freiberger, WB5BBW Dept. of Computer Science, TAMU %
% Internet: kurt@cs.tamu.edu | I love my country. %
% AuralNet: 409/847-8607 | It is my government that I fear. %
% AMPRNet: wb5bbw@wb5bbw.ampr.org | %
% Disclaimer: Not EVEN an official document of Texas A&M University %
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 11:00:15 MDT
From: Karl Larsen <klarsen@mercury.arl.army.mil>
Subject: tcp digest
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
I have looked at all the discussion about a new packet radio
group interested in long range planning/discussion and joined it.
I don't see what effect it will have on this group. I do and
expect to continue getting and contributing to this group and if
there is any question about where a discussion should be started,
I will start it here.
Brion has done a fine job with this group and he does what he
see's as being important. He changed the format of this group from
a daily digest to a relay system. The differance must be something
to do with management of the computer this group is run on. It's
none of my business so I won't even ask.
I think it will be helpful to all concerned if we who use
this group back off and let those who know what to do, do it. I
will and hope for a speedy resolution to the problem(s) so I can
ask for more help with Tip....
____________________________
| Internet IP 155.148.6.2 |
| Fido 1:305/111 |
| k5di@k5di.nm.usa.na |
| Ham IP 44.30.2.5 |
| (505) 678-3145 weekdays |
|__________________________|
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 17:13:07 MST
From: Dieter Deyke <deyke@mdddhd.fc.hp.com>
Subject: WAMPES patch 01 available
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
I have uploaded patch01 of WAMPES to ucsd.edu into
"/hamradio/packet/tcpip/incoming". This will bring WAMPES version
930305 up to version 930311. Those fixes should increase portability to
Linux and 386BSD.
73,
Dieter (dk5sg / n0pra)
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V93 #68
******************************
******************************