From ddsw1!ucsd.edu!tcp-digest-relay Fri Sep 21 12:25:34 1990 remote from indep1 Received: by indep1.uucp (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.19) id ; Fri, 21 Sep 90 12:25 CDT Received: by ddsw1.mcs.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.27) id ; Fri, 21 Sep 90 08:07 CDT Received: from ucsd.edu by lll-winken.llnl.gov (5.59/smail2.5) via SMTP; Fri, 21 Sep 90 06:06:08 PDT id AA25341 for tcp-list@indep1.mcs.com Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA18922 sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun Fri, 21 Sep 90 04:30:17 -0700 for edson!liaison!doug Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA18917 sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun Fri, 21 Sep 90 04:30:16 -0700 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odb -oQ/var/spool/lqueue -oi -ftcp-digest-relay tcp-digest-list Message-Id: <9009211130.AA18917@ucsd.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 04:30:15 PDT From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group Reply-To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu Subject: TCP-Group Digest V90 #144 To: tcp-group-digest@ucsd.edu TCP-Group Digest Fri, 21 Sep 90 Volume 90 : Issue 144 Today's Topics: *Silence* auto- vs. manual routing Automatic vs. Manual routing Problems with compiling NOS Terminal Emulation in G1EMM NOS Send Replies or notes for publication to: . Subscription requests to . 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". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 10:11:47 PDT From: ram@@.UCSD.EDU (Ramesh S. Rao) Subject: *Silence* To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu **** From: Ramesh S. Rao (Ram) Organization: Artecon 2460 Impala Drive, Carlsbad CA 92008, USA Phone: 619-931-5500 Ext 173 Fax: 619-931-5527 **** X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL3] Hey Is this newsgroup *totally silent* or does my machine not talk to outside world anymore ???? -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* " I would rather have a bottle in front of me than frontal lobotomy " =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* Ramesh S Rao ::::: hp-sdd!artecon!ram (or) ram%artecon@sdd.hp.com ::::: 619-931-5500 ::::: (or) ::::: (W) 619-434-9074 ::::: uunet!ram%artecon%sdd.hp.com@uunet.UU.NET ::::: (H) =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 07:50:27 cst From: gerry@n5jxs.jsc.nasa.gov Subject: auto- vs. manual routing To: tcpgroup@ucsd.edu Well. 1. YES. I DID FIX THE MANUAL ROUTE ERROR IN MY AUTOEXEC.NET. 2. We've had damn' little problem here in the backwaters of Houston with automatic routing. Period. One exception: The overhead of frequent (hourly) updates really jams up a busy network, especially with a mix of ax25 keyboard and tcp/ip users. 3. We've dropped down some from rip to rspf (some local folks have been hacking on it) and have had pretty reasonable reports. NOTE: That's yet another automatic routing scheme. 4. The problem we've had down this way is that there are 6-8 "permanent" tcp/ip nodes up all the time, and a bunch of transients. With hard routing, I've seen attempts to send mail, or connect for ftp sessions get lost when one or another transient, who'd advertised that he was gonna stay up all the time, dropped off-line to go chat with his buddy on 145.01 in unproto mode... And, no, this hasn't been infrequent. 5. In a real-net application, here at Johnson Space Center, we "enjoy" hard routes. +/- rip. Seems that it takes me no fewer than 8 hops to get out from here, via NASA Ames Research Center, for anything. Also, hard routing, on on my part to a more direct path doesn't work, because I have to go through the local sysco router, and it wanders around JSC and ARC for a while before deciding that bellcore.com isn't at one of the NASA centers... And that sysco is hard-routed. OK. I've said my piece. I know that there's a wide diversity of opinion on manual routes, and I've got my own prejudices. 73, Gerry n5jxs.jsc.nasa.gov n5jxs.ampr.org n5jxs@wb5bbw.hou.stx.usa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 10:01:50 PDT From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Automatic vs. Manual routing To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu I try not to burden this group with a lot of postings but I feel that I need to amplify on my previous automatic vs. manual routing comment. I build IP based networks for a living and have a good deal of experience with different routing protocols and the advantages or disadvantages of routing protocols. For the most part automatic routing protocols are a big win in a network of any size. The only time manual routing is desirable over automatic routing is when the internetwork is limited to a single network. On the other hand some automatic routing protocols, most notably RIP, have a tendency to make things worse when the topology of the network is very dynamic. In most cases it is only one or two gateways that cause problems so the judicious use of manual routes and the rip refuse command makes things relatively palatable. I have no experience yet with RSPF but if memory serves me it is a shortest path first (SPF) link state based routing protocol. In that case it should be a big win over RIP (assuming that it is debugged and working properly) and as such should be a big win for amateur packet radio. Its transmissions should be smaller than RIP transmission too, a very significant issue with our bandwidth limited networks. Now lets look at it from the point of view of the neophyte. He/she is new to TCP/IP and possibly new to packet radio. A good automatic routing protocol allows his/her station to construct its own routing tables. He/she does not need to learn the intricacies of routing. Don't underestimate the power of simplicity. A good automatic routing protocol will greatly enhance the desirability of TCP/IP. 73 de Brian, WB6RQN ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 11:38:15 LCL From: Subject: Problems with compiling NOS To: TCP-GROUP@UCSD.EDU I 'm having trouble trying to compile the 0828 version of NOS. It seems that some header files aren't being included in the source and I constantly get undefined structures. I've had this problem with every version of NOS I've tryed to compile. Am I missing some crucial file that needs to be present? Is there anything that I need to set in TURBOC.CFG? Any help would be appreciated, Bill Brown University of Central Florida Computer Services Internet: brown%ucf-fs200@langate.cc.ucf.edu BITNET: BROWN@UCF1VM.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 10:13:46 CDT From: val!ben@cs.utexas.edu (Ben Thornton) Subject: Terminal Emulation in G1EMM NOS To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu I have been running a dialup SLIP link from my NOS machine at home to a Sun 3/60 workstation at VAL. A problem I have had concerns terminal emulation in TELNET. Does anyone here have a termcap entry that will allow me to use vi or whatever without having my screen switch to 40 column mode? :-) Ben -- Ben Thornton packet: WD5HLS @ KB5PM Internet: ben@val.com Video Associates uucp: ...!cs.utexas.edu!val!ben Austin, TX fidonet: 1:382/40 - The Antenna Farm BBS ------------------------------ End of TCP-Group Digest ******************************