Date: Thu, 16 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 #324
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Thu, 16 Dec 93 Volume 93 : Issue 324
Today's Topics:
LZW Compression on IP Routed sockets.
pktd11c.zip - Crynwr 11.x packet drivers update
X-1 Routing 101
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, 15 Dec 93 13:51:44 CST
From: kf5mg@kf5mg.ampr.org
Subject: LZW Compression on IP Routed sockets.
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
I've found a NNTP program that I want to use with NOS. I've got two
systems, so I can use the NOS box as an IP Router to route the NNTP program's
IP Packets on the air. The only thing I'm missing is the ability to use LZW
compressed sockets with this NNTP client. Is there any possibile way to have
NOS take a non-lzw packet from the NNTP client and compress it before it's
sent? Has anyone tried to do this or are there any version of NOS out there
that already do this? Thanks.
73's de Jack - kf5mg
Internet - kf5mg@kf5mg.ampr.org - 44.28.0.14
AX25net - kf5mg@kf5mg.#dfw.tx.usa.noam - home (817) 488-4386
Worknet - kf5mg@vnet.ibm.com - work (817) 962-4409
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "I am Homer of Borg.... Prepare to be assim.... oooo Donuts." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 93 23:47:00 EST
From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Subject: pktd11c.zip - Crynwr 11.x packet drivers update
To: MSDOS-Ann@SimTel.Coast.NET (MS-DOS upload announce)
I have uploaded to the SimTel Software Repository (available by anonymous
ftp from the primary mirror site OAK.Oakland.Edu and its mirrors):
pub/msdos/pktdrvr/
pktd11c.zip Crynwr 11.x packet drivers update
pktd11c.zip contains a smc_wd.com that works on the SMC Elite/16 ULTRA!
This update of the Crynwr 11.x packet drivers fixes the ne2100, at1500,
and ni6510's terminate problem (they crash after you terminate them),
fixes the 3c509 version number error (was 11.0, should have been 11.2),
makes smc_wd work on the Ultra adapter, removes some junk text in
howtoget.it, and supplies a new lan595 for the Intel 82595.
- -
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> ftp.msen.com:pub/vendor/crynwr/crynwr.wav
Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St. | 315-268-1925 (-9201 FAX) | Quakers do it in the light
Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.
--
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> ftp.msen.com:pub/vendor/crynwr/crynwr.wav
Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St. | 315-268-1925 (-9201 FAX) | Quakers do it in the light
Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 14:46:17 +1100
From: makinc@hhcs.gov.au (Carl Makin)
Subject: X-1 Routing 101
To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
At 10:38 AM 16/12/93 -0000, ssampson@sabea-oc.af.mil wrote:
> box also. The way I experimented was to have 2 X-1's tied together on a diode
> matrix, and the NOS box tied into the junction. The X-1 was run in KISS mode
> rather than NRS, and the X-1 was set to pass all packets not destined for its
> own callsign. In this way my NOS could go down and not interfere with packet
Doesn't this also mean that all traffic heard on one port of the switch was
retransmitted out the other port? Ughh You would do better to run the
netwrong nrs linking and define the routes via netwrong between each of
them.
Why are we still building networks in 1993 with hardware that was obsolete
in 1983? It's time we got rid of the old TNC-2 hardware base. For toy
networks at 1200 baud using netwrong or rose it's fine but when you start
to do any higher speed work you invariably run up against the hardware
limitations and we should NOT be limited by the processing hardware!
Is it time to design a "new" TNC based on something decent and expandable
like a 680xx (for example)? Would there be a market for it if it ran IP
routing software similar to X-1?
I know the Gracillis stuff sorta fills this gap the but the things are far
to expensive locally. (Over $1000AUD for a PacketTen) When a TNC-2 clone
is less than $200AUD.
Carl.
--
Carl Makin (VK1KCM) Systems Programmer
Internet: makinc@hhcs.gov.au
Packet: vk1kcm@vk1kcm.act.aus.oc
Work Phone: +61 6 289-8443
"Words contained herein are DEFINITELY not official!"
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V93 #324
******************************
******************************