Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 04:30:06 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 #8
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Wed, 12 Jan 94 Volume 94 : Issue 8
Today's Topics:
KISS and SLIP (3 msgs)
NOS FTP drive switch (2 msgs)
subscribe tcp-digest
Subscription
TAPR office move
Test
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: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 17:02:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Mike Bilow <MIKEBW@ids.net>
Subject: KISS and SLIP
To: brian@ucsd.edu
"What's wrong with the ISA interface?" Well, for starters, it isn't
standardized. You can't go to a library and find a book that will tell you
how it works and how to build things to plug into it. You can buy books
from outfits that have reverse engineered it, such as Annabooks, but that
is hardly the same thing. Different manufacturers of motherboard chipsets
choose to define some of the bus pins and timing in slightly incompatible
ways, messing with IOCHRDY and such.
Obviously, the ISA bus will forever be the province of the IBM compatible.
You tease about the commitment to historical interfaces because of the
RS-232 connectors on current TNCs, but the ISA bus itself is a vestige of
1981 and the first IBM PC. The ISA bus is also very unsuited to being the
interface of the TNC of the future, because it would not allow intelligent
TNCs to communicate directly with each other; all communication would have
to be directed through the host machine.
I liked the suggestion about using Ethernet hardware for TNC interfacing.
Almost any machine can be made to talk over Ethernet, regardless of CPU,
bus design, or operating system. Ethernet hardware is also very cheap and
is getting cheaper. There are well defined, existing software APIs for
communicating with Ethernet LANs, and there are drivers already available.
In quantity, I would guess that an Ethernet chipset interface design might
add about $10 to the cost of a TNC.
-- Mike
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 16:33:57 -0800
From: karn@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: KISS and SLIP
To: MIKEBW@ids.net
>"What's wrong with the ISA interface?" Well, for starters, it isn't
>standardized.
Not really true. It's about as standard a bus as they get. Of course,
I'm talking de-facto standard, not de-jure. If you really want an
"official" bus standard, try IEEE-696. Some of us are old enough to
remember it as the S-100. :-)
>1981 and the first IBM PC. The ISA bus is also very unsuited to being the
>interface of the TNC of the future, because it would not allow intelligent
>TNCs to communicate directly with each other; all communication would have
As time goes on, I become even more firmly convinced that "smart"
controllers are a dumb idea. Controllers should be simple, fast and
easy to program. The host computer should do the rest of the work.
It just doesn't make a lot of sense anymore to "offload" protocol
functions to specialized controllers that can't possibly follow the
same exponential price/performance curves as mass produced general
purpose host computer CPUs and memory. And for every host cycle that
you save offloading some protocol function, you end up spending it on
some new complex host-to-front-end protocol that you didn't need
before.
About the only specialized controllers that still make any sense are
DSPs (and only for functions that really exploit a DSP's specialized
capabilities, like digital filtering for modems), and FIFO
buffering. And the latter is useful only when it increases the host's
maximum allowable interrupt latency, so this requires careful design.
E.g., a packet controller that can receive or send several packets
without host intervention.
>I liked the suggestion about using Ethernet hardware for TNC interfacing.
>Almost any machine can be made to talk over Ethernet, regardless of CPU,
This idea I do like. If you have to have a local packet-oriented
interface, it might as well be an Ethernet. For one thing, they're a
lot easier to program.
Phil
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 00:34:22 EST
From: crompton@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL (D. Crompton)
Subject: KISS and SLIP
To: MIKEBW@ids.net
Mike,
ISA - that's two generations back! Then we had local-bus and now
PCI.
Doug
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 12:47:44 GMT
From: A.D.S.Benham@bnr.co.uk
Subject: NOS FTP drive switch
To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
In message <1028.martin@server.cdpa.state.ms.us_POPMail/PC_3.2.3_Beta_2> martin@server.cdpa.state.ms.us writes:
> Does anyone know of a NOS version that will allow an FTP user to switch to
> another disk drive and directory? We would like to make a CD Drive
> available via FTP. We are currently using net1itl, but have tried several
> versions and get the same results.
> ------
I had a good go at the JNOS 1.08d source code ages ago and implemented this.
At the same time I modified the handling of the FTPUSERS file to allow
different permissions on different drives and directories: e.g.
anonymous * /public;g:/ 1;/in-tray 2
g9zzz ethelred /usr/g9zzz 63;/public 1;g:/ 1;/in-tray 2
Oh, and I modified the permissions needed for the 'CD' command to cope with
write-only directories in order that "/in-tray 2" can work.
Is there any interest in these mods?
Andrew Benham
--------------------------------------------------------------------
adsb@bnr.co.uk BNR Europe Ltd, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA
adsb@bnr.ca +44 279 402372 Fax: +44 279 402029
Home: g8fsl@g8fsl.ampr.org [44.131.19.165]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 07:21:57 CST6
From: "Chris Cox W0/G4JEC" <CHRISC@Central.nmmc.mn.org>
Subject: NOS FTP drive switch
To: ashok@biochemistry.cwru.edu (Ashok Aiyar), tcp-group@ucsd.edu
> If you have an older version of NOS that doesn't support it, it is
> still relatively simple to use the DOS JOIN command and get NOS to
> support it.
>
DOS' JOIN utility doesn't work with all CD-ROM devices because they
often appear to be network drives rather than local drives, and JOIN
will not allow you mount a network drive as part of another drive (at
least with DOS 3.3 and 5.0 that's the case).
Chris
--
Chris
Chris Cox W0/G4JEC chrisc@Central.NMMC.Mn.Org
Network Analyst NIC Handle: CC345
North Memorial Medical Center Tel: (612) 520-7321
3300 Oakdale Avenue North Fax: (612) 520-5237
Robbinsdale, MN 55422
----- For mail of a more social nature, please use -----
Internet: chrisc@moron.vware.mn.org
Amprnet: chrisc@biggus.g4jec.ampr.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 08:07:40 CST
From: kriss@AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM (R M Kriss)
Subject: subscribe tcp-digest
To: tcp-digest@ucsd.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 09:54:25 GMT+1200
From: "Keith C. Manderson" <HRPKCM@hrp1.palm.cri.nz>
Subject: Subscription
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
May I please have a subscription to your newsfeed?
Regards,
Keith Manderson
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 16:05:56 MST
From: w6swe@w6swe.tapr.org (Bob Nielsen)
Subject: TAPR office move
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Tucson Amateur Packet Radio has moved its offices. The mailing
address is:
Tucson Amateur Packet Radio
8987-309 E. Tanque Verde Rd. #337
Tucson, AZ 85749-9399
The voice telephone number is (817) 383-0000. This number has a
voice mail system attached and is available 24 hours a day. A FAX
server will be operational within the next few weeks to
automatically fax information to you.
The incoming FAX number is (817) 566-2544.
More information on the office move will be published in the
Winter, 1994 edition of Packet Status Register.
------------------
Bob Nielsen, W6SWE Internet: w6swe@tapr.org
Tucson, AZ AX.25: w6swe@wb7tls.az.usa.na
Amateur IP: 44.124.12.16
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 12:00:33 +0100 (MET)
From: G6ACT%PI8VNW@pa2aga.igg.tno.nl
Subject: Test
To: TCPAGA@igg512ke.igg.tno.nl
R:940108/1204Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU [Hoek v Holland] #:7095 Op:PE0MAR
R:940108/0718Z @:PI8MID.#ZLD.NLD.EU #:57017 [Middelburg] FBB5.15b $:4=
1973_GB7NR
R:940108/0654Z @:ON4AWP.OVN.BEL.EU [Gent, JO11ub] #:22484 Z:B-9000 FB=
B5.15
R:940108/0752Z @:ON1CED.WVN.BEL.EU [Beernem] #:44769 Z:8720 FBB5.15
R:931230/0322z 7073@GB7MXM.#36.GBR.EU $:41973_GB7NRY [SDG Felixstowe:=
JO01PX] NNA V2.04
R:931229/1935Z @:GB7TLH.#35.GBR.EU [E.Dereham] #:23928 Z:JO02LQ
R:931229/1930Z @:GB7RUT.#25.GBR.EU [RUTLAND] #:24332
R:931229/1929Z @:GB7BAD.#23.GBR.EU [Nottm] #:24011 Z:NG60LS FBB5.15
R:931229/1929Z @:GB7WRG.#19.GBR.EU [WRG]#:81795
R:931229/1922Z @:GB7SYP.#19.GBR.EU [Barnsley] - #:39179
R:931229/1630Z @:GB7FYS.#19.GBR.EU [Huddersfield] - FBB5.14d #:72775
R:931229/2118Z @:GB7NRY.#19.GBR.EU [Halifax] #:41973 $:41973_GB7NRY
=46rom: G6ACT@GB7NRY.#19.GBR.EU
To : TCPAGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
73 Simon
=D6=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=
=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=D2=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=
=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=
=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=B7
=BA NTS: G6ACT @ GB7NRY.#19.GBR.EU =BA AmprNet: g6act@g6act.ampr.org =
44.131.2.38 =BA
=BA Remote Sysop GB7NRY.#19.GBR.EU =BA Internet: g6act%gb7nry@bbs.ara=
smith.com =BA
=D3=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=
=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=D0=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=
=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=
=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=BD
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #8
******************************
******************************