Date: Wed, 13 Jul 94 04:30:31 PDT From: Ham-Digital Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Ham-Digital-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Ham-Digital@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Ham-Digital Digest V94 #231 To: Ham-Digital Ham-Digital Digest Wed, 13 Jul 94 Volume 94 : Issue 231 Today's Topics: 44.x subnets IP Address es AmprNet One-way automated digital=bad Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Ham-Digital Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-digital". 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: 13 Jul 1994 02:24:31 GMT From: gateway.wiltel.com!chrisw@uunet.uu.net Subject: 44.x subnets To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu Brian Kantor (brian@nothing.ucsd.edu) wrote: : How many of the regional subnets are connected by routers? How many are : served by the SAME router? And why are those served by the same router : then separate subnets? : Subnetting: do it only when there's an advantage to it. : - Brian Geez, Brian, I can't believe you of all people are saying this-- there already is an advantage to it. If we start suggesting now that people use their old ip address when they move into a new area, we're going to end up with a real mess. It's already hard enough to teach some hams what ip numbering and a netmask is all about, nevermind if we start throwing together a mess of different subnets in the same area. When I put a Internet/AMPR gateway on the air a couple years ago in Kansas, it was partly the consistancy of the subnetting which allowed it to work. Can you image if I had to advertise routes for the 44.122.1.0 subnet and also these three or four ip addresses of guys who moved into the area but kept their old ip number? You don't want to go strictly by geographic region, but you should let the local coordinaters then subdivide according to their specific situation. Just keep it in some kind of order so that as things develop we don't have to worry about all kinds of renegade addresses. -- Chris Whittenburg Telecom Engineer chris_whittenburg@wiltel.com (918) 588-5845 --- "ATM simply doesn't buy us anything over a scaled up version of IP" -Van Jacobson in a discssion panel on June 28th, 1993. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 1994 01:13:19 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.cic.net!phillips@network.ucsd.edu Subject: IP Address es AmprNet To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu st3qi@elroy.uh.edu (Brad Killebrew N5LJV) writes: >Is there a FAQ for AmprNet floating arond? If you have it, would appreciate >it if you could e-mail it to me (st3qi@jetson.uh.edu). Would also like to >know if there is a master list of IP addresses for AmprNet. Thanks es 73. You can ftp the current "master" list, both forward and reverse translation versions, from ucsd.edu. It's available both in text format and as a zip archive. I haven't seen a FAQ, but there is plenty of good documentation. Several fine beginner's guides are also available at ucsd.edu, and I heartily recommend Ian Wade's book NOSIntro. -- Gary Lee Phillips Computer Services Librarian (312) 663-1600 x359 Columbia College, Chicago #include ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 02:34:04 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.csuohio.edu!sww@network.ucsd.edu Subject: One-way automated digital=bad To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu : Notice that there is no incentive to create "smart systems" that can find one : another and communicate while dodging interference and other QSO's in the HF : bands. This is easily doable, but apparently stands to cut into the big profi Don't be too sure. Remember, the FCC had things frozen for eight years. Advancement was essentially prohibited. You had only the provisions of the stay with only the annointed few. 73, Steve NO8M.#NEOH.OH.USA.NA ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 1994 15:20:26 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!Munich.Germany.EU.net!thoth.mch.sni.de!news.sni.de!nanette!norton!schro@network.ucsd.edu To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu References <1994Jul8.121842.16383@rsd.dl.nec.com>, <2vk7iq$f0u@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Muni Reply-To : schroeder.pad@sni.de Subject : Re: GTOR--A big improvement? In Muphaus@cris.com (Marv Uphaus) writes: [some deleted] >AMTOR is out because most people never figured it out and those who did >don't have the Upper/Lower case capabilities that digital modes need >today... This is no longer true. All the APLINK (Amtor Packet Link) mailboxes around the world use an extended amtor code with upper/lower case and extended punctuation. It has all printable us-ascii characters and is compatible to older equipment. This feature is supported for example by PK-232s and HamComm 3.0. I also don't see what's so difficult to get amtor going. It requires a transceiver with fast rx/tx switching, but that is not a problem with newer models. I have used an FT-747, TS-440 and TS-950 without any trouble. Those who don't know what they are doing will have problems with any mode :-) 73 de Django DL5YEC ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 1994 14:36:14 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!col.hp.com!jms@network.ucsd.edu To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu References , , io-state Subject : Re: One-way automated digital=bad Roger Buffington (rogjd@netcom.com) wrote: : I just don't understand why the semi-automated crowd was so adament about : being allowed to operate in the keyboard/keyboard segment as opposed to : the automated segment of the band. They didn't want to be interfered with by the automated stations coming up on top of them? Mike, K0TER ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 02:13:53 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!pacbell.com!amdahl!netcomsv!netcom.com!rogjd@network.ucsd.edu To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu References , , <2vu9ou$sn3@hp-col.col.hp.com> Subject : Re: One-way automated digital=bad Mike Stansberry (jms@col.hp.com) wrote: : Roger Buffington (rogjd@netcom.com) wrote: : : I just don't understand why the semi-automated crowd was so adament about : : being allowed to operate in the keyboard/keyboard segment as opposed to : : the automated segment of the band. : They didn't want to be interfered with by the automated stations : coming up on top of them? Grin..... Yeah, I think that was probably it. I am truly baffled regarding how anyone could object to putting the semi-auto boys up there with the auto boys. But they were ADAMANT about wanting the same sub band as the humans. Oh well.... -- rogjd@netcom.com Glendale, CA AB6WR ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 02:10:34 GMT From: netcomsv!netcom.com!rogjd@decwrl.dec.com To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu References <2vk7iq$f0u@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, , <2vucbq$gvl@nanette.pdb.sni.de> Subject : Re: GTOR--A big improvement? W.F.Schroeder (schro@norton.sni.de) wrote: : In Muphaus@cris.com (Marv Uphaus) writes: : [some deleted] : >AMTOR is out because most people never figured it out and those who did : >don't have the Upper/Lower case capabilities that digital modes need : >today... : This is no longer true. All the APLINK (Amtor Packet Link) mailboxes : around the world use an extended amtor code with upper/lower case and : extended punctuation. It has all printable us-ascii characters and is : compatible to older equipment. This feature is supported for example : by PK-232s and HamComm 3.0. : I also don't see what's so difficult to get amtor going. It requires a : transceiver with fast rx/tx switching, but that is not a problem with : newer models. I have used an FT-747, TS-440 and TS-950 without any trouble. : Those who don't know what they are doing will have problems with any mode :-) : 73 de Django : DL5YEC Here in the States it's pretty rare to have a keyboard-to-keyboard amtor qso in upper/lower case, although I know that the PK232, at least, does support it. Not sure why. I know at one point there was a question as to whether or not that is legal in the USA. Perhaps the real answer is that most of those who would have gotten up to speed on upper/lower case amtor simply switched to Pactor? 73 -- rogjd@netcom.com Glendale, CA AB6WR ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 1994 10:10:48 GMT From: nothing.ucsd.edu!brian@network.ucsd.edu To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu References <9407081953.AA21468@dns>, <2vnt14$9p8@network.ucsd.edu>, <2vvj8v$7c4@gateway.wiltel.com> Subject : Re: 44.x subnets I don't advocate retaining your old address when you move, nor do I object to subnets that make sense. But there are people who want to do truly clueless subnetting like dividing Los Angeles into tiny little districts that can already talk to each other and which won't be routed via community routers. That's the kind of subnetting you want to avoid. As I say, subnet when there's a reason for it. Don't when there's not. - Brian ------------------------------ End of Ham-Digital Digest V94 #231 ******************************