Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 04:30:01 PST From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group Errors-To: TCP-Group-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #3 To: tcp-group-digest TCP-Group Digest Fri, 7 Jan 94 Volume 94 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: AMPR.org Domain Extended KISS and SMACK specifications? (4 msgs) JNOS and Turbo C++ 3.0 Problem compiling KA9Q nos.. test 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". 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, 6 Jan 1994 11:10:56 -0600 (CST) From: ssampson@sabea-oc.af.mil (Steve Sampson) Subject: AMPR.org Domain To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu Over the holidays I made a few additions to the domain and then downloaded the file to see how all my entries took. While my changes took as desired, I was surprised by the number of errors in there! Rather than search for them all, I just changes the obvious errors. The most significant number of errors was leaving the ',' off the end of a non-ampr.org domain. Some people used ampr.org in their entry and never used a '.' and thus were known as: jimbob.ampr.org.ampr.org after "ampr.org" is added to everything without a dot. Most cases were in the MX record though, and by leaving a '.' off the end of a "fully qualified domain name" results in: jimbob-state.edu.ampr.org Not really what you wanted is it... Anyway, you might take a look at the result and see if yours is fixed now :-) -- Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 14:38:11 +0200 (EET) From: mea@mea.cc.utu.fi ("Matti E. Aarnio [OH1MQK]") Subject: Extended KISS and SMACK specifications? To: louie@uunet.uu.net (Louis A. Mamakos) > > My PK-88 supports "Extended KISS". This appears to include checksums, > > reporting of the transmission of a packet, and polling of the TNC by the > > host. > > Wow. Is this all a good thing? > > KISS = "Keep It Simple, Stupid" Yes. Lack of checksums on KISS in between TNC and the computer has been shown to be a problem on some cases (loaded computer, multiple TNCs, ..) While it improves the interface in between the TNC, and the computer, it still is very KISS in deed. Alternative would be to hack automatic interaction with various types of TNCs -- and running TCP/IP would be next to impossible.. 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 ? > louie > wa3ymh /Matti Aarnio oh1mqk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 09:57:47 -0800 (PST) From: Lyndon Nerenberg Subject: Extended KISS and SMACK specifications? To: "Louis A. Mamakos" On Wed, 5 Jan 1994, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: > > My PK-88 supports "Extended KISS". This appears to include checksums, > > reporting of the transmission of a packet, and polling of the TNC by the > > host. > Wow. Is this all a good thing? Yes. There is no excuse for not having a data integrety check between the TNC and computer, especially in light of the (IBM) PC's ability to drop characters. I'm not sure what's meant by "polling" here, however something else that's sorely needed is the ability for the TNC to notify the PC that a packet has been sent over the air. This let's the PC start the retransmit timer when the packet is sent on the air, rather than when the PC sends to the TNC. > KISS = "Keep It Simple, Stupid" You want to keep the protocol broken just to maintain backwards compatibility with the name? Foo! --lyndon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jan 1994 17:32:04 -0500 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" Subject: Extended KISS and SMACK specifications? To: Lyndon Nerenberg [I wrote..] > > Wow. Is this all a good thing? > Yes. There is no excuse for not having a data integrety check between the > TNC and computer, especially in light of the (IBM) PC's ability to drop > characters. Sure, there's a great excuse. KISS was supposed to be SIMPLE and EASY to implement on hardware that couldn't support a direct connection to the link-layer hardware. > I'm not sure what's meant by "polling" here, however something else > that's sorely needed is the ability for the TNC to notify the PC that a > packet has been sent over the air. This let's the PC start the retransmit > timer when the packet is sent on the air, rather than when the PC sends > to the TNC. Once you begin to add all this complexity, I contend that you'd be better off spending the effort writing a driver to support a more tightly-coupled hardware interface. > > KISS = "Keep It Simple, Stupid" > > You want to keep the protocol broken just to maintain backwards > compatibility with the name? Foo! No, the point as I understand it was to build a simple, non-broken, low-capability protocol. I claim that attempting to unreasonably extend the KISS protocol breaks it. louie wa3ymh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 14:59:05 -0800 (PST) From: Lyndon Nerenberg Subject: Extended KISS and SMACK specifications? To: "Louis A. Mamakos" > > Yes. There is no excuse for not having a data integrety check between the > > TNC and computer, especially in light of the (IBM) PC's ability to drop > > characters. > Sure, there's a great excuse. KISS was supposed to be SIMPLE and EASY > to implement on hardware that couldn't support a direct connection to > the link-layer hardware. Do you work for Sun? This sounds like their reasoning for turning off NFS UDP checksums: dump the error checking so we can make the benchmarks look better. KISS = Keep It Stupid, Simple. Not! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jan 94 15:47:00 PST From: Martin Lines Subject: JNOS and Turbo C++ 3.0 To: "'nos-bbs'" , tcp-group Has anyone achieved the impossible and got a vaguely stable version of JNOS using the TC++ 3.0 compiler. Mine crashes instantly with Invalid pointers in cmdintr. Here' s hoping! Martin - G1SEO ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jan 94 10:14:15 EST From: RLM@MAINE.maine.edu (Robert L. Metcalf NV1A) Subject: Problem compiling KA9Q nos.. To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu (TCP folx) Hi.. I have a question about NOS... I FTP'd what I think is the latest version of KA9Q NOS from ucsd.edu: -r--r--r-- 1 257 939922 Jul 1 1993 rcsdsrc.zip I have un-RCS'd the files and compiled and assembled all of the pieces (with make), but make has a problem when it comes time to link everything together. There are a lot of undefined labels, etc.. I think my problem is that I am using Turbo C++ version 3.0 and an old version of TASM (v1.01).. I think the .OBJ files created by my TASM are not compatible with the new compiler tools.(?) Is there a way to fix this? Are the .OBJ files for the new assembly source available via FTP? Thanks! Rob NV1A rlm@maine.maine.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jan 94 13:03:00 PST From: tijc02!SMROUTER!LEROJX%ALPH1%SIAMAIL%MSROUTER@uunet.UU.NET Subject: test To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu TO:smrouter/tcp-group@ucsd.edu test ------------------------------ End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #3 ******************************