Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 04:30:02 PDT 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 #203 To: tcp-group-digest TCP-Group Digest Thu, 15 Sep 94 Volume 94 : Issue 203 Today's Topics: ax25 linux implementation? (2 msgs) Cross compile NOS with gcc? help wampes and net takes all cpu 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: Wed, 14 Sep 94 07:53:07 -0500 From: k5yfw@sacdm10.kelly.af.mil (WALT DUBOSE - K5YFW) Subject: ax25 linux implementation? To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu Hey, digi's are Ok, as along as they work at 19.2Kbps or better and are 1200 ft AGL. But data repeaters (that will handle 19.2Kbps or better and are 1200 ft AGL) are better as you just play with the RX/TX frequencies and not the software. -- K5YFW In Gerry's message of 14 Sep 1994 at 0536 CDT, he writes: > Rob sez: > > > > *** In reply to mail from Brian Kantor, ....: > > > The way you handle direct vs digi paths to stations is > > > > > > 1) get rid of the digi. Dynamite is good Digipeaters suck hard and > > > really need to be gotten rid of as fast as possible. If this helps, so > > > much the better. > > > > This'll give the digi 'a larger coverage area', is this what we want ? > > > > Dozing it in might be safer ... ;-) > > With dynamite, you disperse it overa larger area both reducing the overall > impact of the original problem, and making it harder for the EPA to figure out > what it was to cite you. If you doze and bury it, it's a point source of > contamination... ;-) > > Gerry > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 21:00:46 -0700 From: Phil Karn Subject: ax25 linux implementation? To: brian@nothing.ucsd.edu I fully agree with Brian's suggestions. They're mostly consistent with the way NOS already does it. I used to do it differently, but changed to the present scheme because it was so much cleaner. You really don't want variable length ARP packets and monster sockaddr structures. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 21:11:13 -0700 From: Phil Karn Subject: Cross compile NOS with gcc? To: jmorriso@bogomips.ee.ubc.ca I've never built NOS with gcc, but I'm *this close* to abandoning Borland C altogether and going to DJGCC. The only thing holding me back is the learning curve for DJGCC. Anybody out there with experience, or who can point me to a FAQ so I can come up to speed? Phil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Sep 94 16:12 GMT+0200 From: iw8qbw@iw8qbw-5.ampr.org (Domenico Dato) Subject: help To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu help ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 11:11:50 EST From: BARRY TITMARSH Subject: wampes and net takes all cpu To: Olaf Erb dc1ik , Ok fixed.. during the reinstall on linux, i over looked the fact that wampes was still expecting a local route via slip and a ttyp0 and on the linux side i forgot to setup the slattach for the ptyp0 and ifconfig sl0 it... think that this is a known bug in wampes if a route/iface via pty's is left hanging high and dry. all functioning correctly now.. Thanks. Barry.. ------------------------------ End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #203 ******************************