Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 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 V94 #6
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Mon, 10 Jan 94 Volume 94 : Issue 6
Today's Topics:
Extended KISS and SMACK specifications?
jnos-doc.msword.Z -- empty!!!
SLIP and KISS (and old men) (2 msgs)
tcp-group
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: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 03:33:58 -0800
From: karn@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Extended KISS and SMACK specifications?
To: mea@mea.cc.utu.fi ()
> I think Phil Karn had something to do with that E-KISS protocol,
>or was it just that he has said what things are missing missing from
>the original specs ?
This is the first I've heard of E-KISS, though I admit I've not been following
things closely. I have on occasion said that it was probably a mistake to
not put frame-level checksums or CRCs into the KISS frame, mainly because
of the popularity of KISS for applications other than TCP/IP (where the
built-in checksums are usually good enough).
Having said that, I think there's little reason these days to tolerate
lost characters on a local hard-wired RS-232 link, given the fairly
wide availability of 16550A chips with FIFOs. Overruns simply don't
occur with those chips under credible situations, even on slow
machines.
Phil
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 94 19:28:36 EST
From: jmr@ruth.ece.psu.edu (Joe Reinhardt)
Subject: jnos-doc.msword.Z -- empty!!!
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Looks like someone overwrote the new JNOS docs on ucsd.edu:
-rw-rw-rw- 1 ftp 0 Jan 8 01:47 jnos-doc.msword.Z
-rw-rw-rw- 1 ftp 0 Jan 8 01:48 jnos-doc.msword.txt
(I know these files were non-empty several days back)
Could the author re-upload them, or someone tell me where to get
a copy?
Thanks - Joe AF2J
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 11:55:00 -0600 (CST)
From: ssampson@sabea-oc.af.mil (Steve Sampson)
Subject: SLIP and KISS (and old men)
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
>What's wrong with ISA as that interface? I mean, how much more control
>can you have over a device than if it's plugged into the bus of your computer?
I thought of this myself, but then threw it out as an option when I decided
I wouldn't want it to be PC based. The other thing was that I could put it on
the roof (or close to the radio and far from the computer). You could attach
it anywhere on your network, give it an IP address and it's on the air.
There's a majority that likes to watch the AX.25 however, and don't just want
IP's (all those people who are porting AX.25 to Unix - what a waste) and in
that case maybe a tracing "port" address could be an option. That is if you
telnet to the tracing port you can watch the channel packets fly by, or maybe
a KaGold port for the multi-connect HF crowd.
>Naw, hams will never go for it. They'd have to own modern equipment,
>like 10-year-old PCs.
I think the packet manufacturers have also taken this stand. They keep
designing CRAP and have zero research going on.
>Face it guys, out here on the edge, worrying about what 'the majority'
>wants or isn't too scared to do is a pitiful waste of your time.
That's the trouble with TCP/IP - all the old heads have "been there, done
that" and have pretty much given up. The new heads are converting the
software over to a crummy BBS, and, well, well, phooey - big deal with that.
>TCP/IP will NEVER be widely accepted by the ham radio community and
>you'd better just stop wasting your breath trying. What's the matter?
>Feeling lonely because no one else wants to play the game?
Not with the current designs. JNOS and NOS are designed for PC's. They are
designed for people who have a PC to spare that they can put in a corner and
be a lousy BBS sysop - big deal. NOS probably is the more interesting
because it seems to be more of a development of ideas rather than the
finality of a BBS.
But they're both history unless they can be put in a box that communicates
with the home or office computer. I'm an old man (over 40) and I have a
stinking Ethernet card :-) Those young boys getting licenses (not many
women or girls on the air) probably specify at least that to their old man.
I want to be able to communicate to a box using a PC, a MAC, or a Cray, or
a Super-Duper-III...
So there.
---
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 15:42:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: jerry@tr2.com
Subject: SLIP and KISS (and old men)
To: ssampson@sabea-oc.af.mil (Steve Sampson)
Steve Sampson writes:
>
> There's a majority that likes to watch the AX.25 however, and don't just want
> IP's (all those people who are porting AX.25 to Unix - what a waste)
*** Don't on-the-air IP packets travel inside AX.25 frames? Seems to me
that the purpose of writing Unix ax25 drivers was to be able to use their
native IP stacks instead of NOS, providing a seamless integration of
the radio ``network'' into the unix environment. Hardly a ``waste'',
although such an approach is not without its (mainly social & legal)
problems.
- Jerry ( quickly approaching OFhood at 39 )
--
***************************************************************
* Jerry Kaidor jerry@tr2.com, jkaidor@synoptics.com *
* KF6VB ( Linux! ) *
***************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 94 21:49:46 EST
From: hamnut@aol.com
Subject: tcp-group
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
subscribe - add me to list
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #6
******************************
******************************