Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 04:30:01 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 #321
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Mon, 13 Dec 93 Volume 93 : Issue 321
Today's Topics:
Networks (2 msgs)
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: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 11:23:14 -0700 (MST)
From: Klarsen <klarsen@acca.nmsu.edu>
Subject: Networks
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
I am sick and tired of seeing messages from unix users of their
employers computer and ethernet system telling hams that their netrom
network is too slow and how to correct this problem. For God's Sake my
work ethernet at 10 MHz data rate is worlds ahead of the netrom network we
have for ham radio.
The differance is who pays for the network. Right now we are using
a network payed in large part for by my boss the U.S. Army. I enjoy a fast
network because the Army pays 100s of thousands of Dollars a year to make
the internet work.
The REAL packet radio network is payed for by hams out of funds
they get from the wife. That is why the typical ham packet network is a
tnc-2 clone with a The Net chip with some version of netrom. The guys
using ROSE could use netrom and should, but the sysops of nodes never
could figure out how to control the route part of The Net. So how,
prey-tell are these same node sysop's going to set up an IP node?
Netrom is not in principle slow, tnc-2's are slow. There is
nothing basically wrong with AX.25 but there is better stuff out there.
How are we going to replace all those tnc-2's with 2 MHz Z-80 cpu's?
All it takes is time and money.
So when you hams that tell me my network is crummy and should be
replaced come up with time and money to change it I will be pleased. In
the mean-time stop running down what we have!
73, de karl k5di@k5di.nm.usa.na
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 19:26:25 -0600 (CST)
From: ssampson@sabea-oc.af.mil (Steve Sampson)
Subject: Networks
To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
> The guys using ROSE could use netrom and should, but the sysops of nodes
> never could figure out how to control the route part of The Net. So how,
> prey-tell are these same node sysop's going to set up an IP node?
It's more complex than that. The advantage that Rose had initially over
thenet was that the routing tables had to be coordinated. The early thenets
were affected by pop-up nodes from wanna-be's and routed mostly in circles.
Current versions are rugged enough to prevent this and offsets any Rose
advantage. I don't think the route part of thenet is any more complex than
most interested hams can handle.
> How are we going to replace all those tnc-2's with 2 MHz Z-80 cpu's?
2 MHz should be plenty fast for 1200 baud, but that's not why thenet is slow.
> So when you hams that tell me my network is crummy and should be
> replaced come up with time and money to change it I will be pleased. In
> the mean-time stop running down what we have!
Well, I may have been responsible for your recent article. I'm not a
system or node manager of any amateur system, and I'd be the last one to
say your system is not worthy.
My intention wasn't to denigrate any particular network, or attack anyone
personally, it was to offer an argument for future direction. The fact that
people are running thenet, rose and texnet networks successfully is nothing to
make light of, or sneer at, it's a worthy accomplishment. My point of argument
was that I think future systems should not have a protocol that first requires
you to connect, send specific packet numbers, and acknowledge every packet
at such a low network level. That it would be an interesting experiment to
see if a pure datagram network would be significantly faster than connection
mode AX.25. We know from experiments that the only way around the hidden node
problem is a new protocol, or only two nodes on a frequency. Given beam
antennas and proper planning, this is easily accomplished. It isn't cheap,
but cheap networks have problems much larger than any particular protocol,
usually revolving around Omni antennas, interference, and hidden nodes.
As far as comparing Amprnet with Internet, I agree. We will NEVER be as good,
and dreaming about this possibility is a waste of energy. We can however
possibly double the throughput during our lifetime if we wouldn't spend so
much time being clannish or prideful in one mode of thought. While I don't
think the answer is Internet nodes, I don't have any right telling these
people they're any more wrong than the next guy.
---
Steve
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V93 #321
******************************
******************************