QRZ! Ham Radio 3/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 3.iso/digests/tcp/930325.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-06-04 | 10KB

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 04:30:01 PST
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V93 #325
To: tcp-group-digest


TCP-Group Digest            Fri, 17 Dec 93       Volume 93 : Issue  325

Today's Topics:
                        "new" TNCs... (2 msgs)
                        pmnmos mbox forwarding
                      TCP-Group Digest V93 #324
                        UDP Locking Things Up
                           X-1 Routing 101

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>.
Subscription requests to <[e-mail]>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

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, 16 Dec 1993 10:16:54 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (Mike Cheponis)
Subject: "new" TNCs...
To: [e-mail] (Steve Sampson)

>>Why are we still building networks in 1993 with hardware that was obsolete
>>in 1983?

>Well some hams were designing various computer designs over the years, but
>none of them ever reached the market.  Most just passed away quietly after
>published fan-fare.  No one has designed a box yet that can do 56Kb or 10Mb
>so we use PC's and Z-80's.

>Steve

I've designed a few faster digital boxes, and let me assure you that they
certainly did 56k and 10 Mb (w/ethernet controller chip).  However, there
have been other (non-technical) reasons that the PS-186, AIO, etc are
not currently available to the ham community, and will probably not be.

But here's the bottom line: THERE IS NO MARKET FOR HIGH-SPEED HAM EQUIPMENT!!!

If there were a market, AEA, Kantronics, Paccomm, MFJ, etc, would certainly
cater to it...

-Mike k3mc

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 17:19:50
From: [e-mail] (Dave Perry ve3ifb)
Subject: "new" TNCs...
To: [e-mail]

>>>Why are we still building networks in 1993 with hardware that was obsolete
>>>in 1983?

>>Well some hams were designing various computer designs over the years, but
>>none of them ever reached the market.  Most just passed away quietly after
>>published fan-fare.  No one has designed a box yet that can do 56Kb or 10Mb
>>so we use PC's and Z-80's.

Sure they have reached the market: Gracilis PackeTen, Kantronics Data
Engine for stand-alone boxes, and Gracilis PackeTwin or Ottawa PI2 for PC
plug-ins.

>>Steve

>I've designed a few faster digital boxes, and let me assure you that they
>certainly did 56k and 10 Mb (w/ethernet controller chip).  However, there
>have been other (non-technical) reasons that the PS-186, AIO, etc are
>not currently available to the ham community, and will probably not be.

>But here's the bottom line: THERE IS NO MARKET FOR HIGH-SPEED HAM
>EQUIPMENT!!!

I disagree, there is a very small but growing market.

>If there were a market, AEA, Kantronics, Paccomm, MFJ, etc, would certainly
>cater to it...

It's not big enough yet.

>-Mike k3mc


We have enjoyed 56K lan service in Ottawa for several years now. However,
new users have been *very* slow to catch on. I blame it on the lack of
plug and play modem and RF gear. Gear is relatively expensive and difficult
to commission (but easier than many think).  People don't realize that
higher bit rates bring a qualitative difference - you can do new things,
not just the old things faster.  Eventually though, it will reach critical
mass, the economies of scale will kick in, and it'll explode.

Who knows when though?

Dave

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 93 08:18:56 PST
From: "Edwin H. Maling" <[e-mail]>
Subject: pmnmos mbox forwarding
To: [e-mail]

To: OAS     --SSWSMTP  OPEN ADDRESSING SE

FROM: Edwin H. Maling
      Chevron Info Tech Co
      CSD - Tech Support
SUBJECT: pmnmos mbox forwarding


Hello All,
Running PMNOS 1.1 it appears that durning mailbox forward connection is
established to the remote end, pleasantries are exchanged, get short prompt,
'sp n0its@n0its' is sent, n0its responds with 'OK' then PMNOS dosen't send
anything more. Althought I can't see anything wrong with it forward.bbs looks
like:
---------
n0its
netrom n0its-4
.c n0its
n0its
---------
If anyone has any ideas I'd sure appreciate it.
Tnx, Happy Holidays & 73 de Ed
[e-mail]   - or -  [e-mail]

Edwin H. Maling - Ed - [phone] (VERUT3)
1275 E. Hwy 40 # 3
Vernal, Ut 84078-2830
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 15:24:25 GMT
From: Jan Schiefer <[e-mail]>
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V93 #324
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Carl Makin) wrote:

> 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

Todays networks do not consist of experimenters anymore, 99% are plain
users. So you won't get rid of the installed hardware base in a 5-10 year
timeframe.

> 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?

There is a design from the german company SYMEK ([phone]) using
the Motorola 68302 (68000 core with comms. coprocessor). You might want
to give them a ring to obtain more info about this. The price in Germany
should be around DM 700 (abt. $500). I have no idea about overseas
availability.

Cheers,
 Jan

--
 Jan Schiefer, g0trr, [e-mail], HP Labs Bristol, UK.  [phone]
Finally, I discovered a way to create lines longer then 80 columns, even on term

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 16:03:49 -0800
From: karn (Phil Karn)
Subject: UDP Locking Things Up
To: [e-mail]

>No, this is not what happens.  I'll describe it more detail.  Let's
>say I have four messages in the mail queue read to get fired out.
>I'll kick the smtp server, or the timer goes off.  It immediately
>hoses up.  Only the first message gets a lock file, the timer
>processes stops running.  This is easy to see as all session never

Seems to me the obvious fix is to have the function that the timer
kicks to send mail spawn a new task before attempting to do any domain
resolutions. That way the timer task will never attempt to sleep.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 07:26:26 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail] (Steve Sampson)
Subject: X-1 Routing 101
To: [e-mail]

>> 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.

The object was so I could monitor all the data on both the UHF and VHF side.
There's also a mode that just does KISS, passing only stuff out the serial
port that is routed that way.  In effect replacing NRS.  You can kill off all
that code in NOS now, and just use KISS. Also, it's called Net/Rom, not
netwrong - don't they teach you guys how to spell?  Or is this some political,
prideful, clannish thing?  While I like the IP part of X-1, some like the old
fashioned stuff.

>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!

Well some hams were designing various computer designs over the years, but
none of them ever reached the market.  Most just passed away quietly after
published fan-fare.  No one has designed a box yet that can do 56Kb or 10Mb
so we use PC's and Z-80's.  Sorry, but this is state of the art in hamdom,
maybe some other country can develop something for the ARRL, because they're
not supporting anything other than political issues right now.

>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?

There is a market for high speed DMA dynamic routers.  These should be sold
like texnet (complete package deal - from power to RF).  The CPU can be
anything.  The reason no one uses motorola stuff anymore is because it's
price is above market value.  If you can get them to slash their prices
25% maybe I'll consider their chips.  Otherwise a simple RISC design with a
large address space is all that's needed.

>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.

They use mototola stuff, they could reduce the price 25% if they used some
Intel or TI stuff.
---
Steve

------------------------------

End of TCP-Group Digest V93 #325
******************************
******************************