QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/tcp/940128.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 18KB

Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 04:30:14 PDT
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #128
To: tcp-group-digest


TCP-Group Digest            Fri, 24 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  128

Today's Topics:
            [[e-mail]: help ip tos]
                   Editor diferent than VI (2 msgs)
                      History and the Final TNC
                           IP-TNC (2 msgs)
                   IP-TNC, the beginings? (3 msgs)
                         MX or CNAME (2 msgs)
               Router Project (TNC from Hell) (2 msgs)
                        Telnet Client for JNOS

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: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 02:33:27 -0700
From: Phil Karn <[e-mail]>
Subject: [[e-mail]: help ip tos]
To: BARRY TITMARSH <[e-mail]>

As is documented in the comments for the function axui_send() in
ax25.c, the rules for choosing between connected-mode (I frame) AX25
and connectionless (UI frame) mode are as follows:

1. If the DTR subfield within the TOS field is "low delay" (10 hex)
then send the datagram as a UI frame.

2. If the DTR is "high reliability" (4 hex) then send the datagram in
an I frame.

3. Otherwise, use the default encapsulation mode for the interface
(ax25ui or ax25i).

When IP fragments are created, the TOS field in each fragment should be
a copy of the original. I.e., all should be sent the same way.

I can't see any reason for your observed behavior. Are you sure it's
something that occurs in my code, as opposed to a modified version?

Phil

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 19:53:45 UTC
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Editor diferent than VI
To: [e-mail]

Anybody knows a editor to use with a Unix machine via telnet conection
(emulation VT100 or VT220 so on) difetent than the VI Editor??

What ftp site can i find it??

Thank and sorry to lover's VI  ;-) ...


 Saludos de Curro eb3aod

e-mail : [e-mail]
AX25 : [e-mail]
"Data Highway" : In my Dreamland ...

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 14:36:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Williams)
Subject: Editor diferent than VI
To: [e-mail]

>
> Anybody knows a editor to use with a Unix machine via telnet conection
> (emulation VT100 or VT220 so on) difetent than the VI Editor??
>
> What ftp site can i find it??
>
> Thank and sorry to lover's VI  ;-) ...
>
>
>  Saludos de Curro eb3aod
>
> e-mail : [e-mail]
> AX25 : [e-mail]
> "Data Highway" : In my Dreamland ...

In order of ease of use and reverse capability:

Pico (part of PINE mail package dist., easy and somewhat emacs like).
uEmacs (Microemacs, shareware, small but good, very portable)
GNU Emacs (large, fantastic capabilities, the ultimate editor, X support, etc.)

sdw
--
Stephen D. Williams  Local Internet Gateway Co.; SDW Systems 513 496-5223APager
LIG dev./sales       Internet: [e-mail]
OO R&D Source Dist.  By Horse: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430
Comm. Consulting     ICBM: 39 34N 85 15W I love it when a plan comes together
Newbie Notice:                (Surfer's know the score...)
     I speak for LIGCo., CCI, myself, and no one else, regardless of
     where it is convenient to post from or thru.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 13:09:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steve Sampson)
Subject: History and the Final TNC
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] writes:
> I was horrified at the short distance we've come since 1987.

The distance is short, because the trip is short.  Everything that can be
said about packet radio has been repeated several times.  You take data and
modulate the damn RF.  Big deal.  Where the pissing contests have been is in
content of that modulation.  Not much debate about type of modulation (which
may be more important).  A lot of Ka-Ka about VC v DG and the political wars
that it generated.  It seems both sides lost, but it made for great heated
discussions that made having your coffee and donuts in the morning more
enjoyable. Finally you probably shouldn't judge the journey on what is printed
in the tcp-group archives.  Only a fraction of the discussions get in there,
while the subscribers talk amongst themselves.  Sort of like contract
side meetings with only the major points being printed :-)

I find the word "horrified" pretty amusing; what did you expect to find given
the state of packet radio in most communities.  Packet radio will always be
a side interest in amateur radio.  It can't compete with CW W.A.S. awards or
weekend contests with robot cq machines. Packet means sharing, and that's a
hard road to follow in most first-world countries.

Mike Cheponis keeps bringing me back to reality.  Every once in a while I get
excited about some thread and make a comment about something (like IP-TNC)
that I would like to persue.  He is absolutly right when he says "Just use a
PC."  I guess the reason I fall into these traps is because the PC is rather
boring and omnipresent (is that the word).  I keep thinking it ought to be a
toaster type gadget that you stick in a corner of the shack.  But he's right,
it's very cheap just to buy the hardware plug it together and get on the air.
It's not toaster size, but can be done without all the other PC trappings
(Monitor, keyboard, etc). For example a cheap AT, PI card(s), Ethernet card,
and a hard disk will be all you ever need all the way up to any speed the
typical amateur can afford.  Just say NOS :-)

> It's no wonder that some of those contributors have disappeared from
> the list

Most of them graduated and went to work...
--
Steve

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 13:39:00 -0000
From: [e-mail] (Mike Bilow)
Subject: IP-TNC
To: [e-mail]

Cc: [e-mail]

 MC> If you need more address space than the 64K that God intended you to have,
 MC> then you must be writing inefficient programs!  ;-)

Then again, there is the TheNet X1 series, where the TNC has an upper and a
lower moby selected by using a port line as an address bit on the ROM.

 MC> We all love building hardware (!), but I've come to the same conclusion as
 MC> Phil: you can do it cheaper with a PC and a plug-in card in almost every
 MC> situation.

That's what I have found, also.  Bill Rossi, KA1QYP, and I have been working on
the design of a repeater controller, and we keep coming back to the idea of
using one of the mini 386SX motherboards you can buy anywhere for $70 brand new
plus a couple of parallel ports.  The main attraction is the simplicity of
writing software for it in a high level language for which we already have all
of the development tools.

-- Mike

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 14:22:41 -0700
From: Phil Karn <[e-mail]>
Subject: IP-TNC
To: [e-mail]

>The biggest difficulty with this sort of project is that it can easily
>be a lot of effort down the drain - you get a system working, then the
>supply of surplus gear dries up and you can't get any further. Good for
>a local fix, but not worth a big investment.

Exactly why I prefer using garden-variety PC clones for this sort of
project.  They may not be ideal for the job, but they do work. And
they're getting better and cheaper all the time, and you know the
supply isn't going to dry up any time soon.

Phil

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 13:47:08 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Adrian Godwin)
Subject: IP-TNC, the beginings?
To: [e-mail]

>
>   I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not fond of homebrewing
> computer hardware;  there's never one wire, always 8 wires or 16 wires
> or 32 wires....  For me, software is where the computer action is.
>
>                                    - Jerry Kaidor, KF6VB

Maybe this is why it's a never-ending argument  - people with a software
bias appreciate that the PC hardware is cheap and cost-effective. But
those with a hardware bias or with a built-in distaste for intel PCs
react against all the mechanical and electrical cruft that comes with
the package, and long for an elegant design that does exactly the job.

-adrian

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 09:14:44
From: [e-mail]
Subject: IP-TNC, the beginings?
To: [e-mail]

Phil Karn said:
> What's wrong with PC clones? They're widely available, cheap and give
> a pretty good bang for the buck.

I must agree... you can get the IBM SLC and generic 386-40 motherboards for
75 to 250 us$ or used, *complete* 2/386 machines for the same price. A
solid, basic version of KA9Q NOS can be used to do what you want in concert
with the appropropriate I/O cards--- the pieces are all there... Why
reinvent the wheel?

Jack
KD4IZ

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 10:28:11 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Jack Brindle)
Subject: IP-TNC, the beginings?
To: [e-mail]

>Phil Karn said:
>> What's wrong with PC clones? They're widely available, cheap and give
>> a pretty good bang for the buck.
>
>I must agree...

Gosh, the chorus of "I agrees" is quickly beginning to sound like "Because
it's always been done that way." There actually are better and cheaper
ways to do the task, plus some folks (myself included) actually ENJOY
designing hardware. I seem to recall a lot of arguments over how networking
should be done about 8 or so years ago. Then a fellow with a '9' call stopped
the discussion by coding things himself. Perhaps it's again time for someone
to invoke the "code rule" by designing better, cheaper hardware and software.

I really suspect that a combination of the two is best. There is absolutely
nothing wrong wih having several networking platforms, unless one (always
the "critical" one) does not implement the protocols properly. We have a
decent platform based on PCs. Whay not add another (or two or three) that
is specific to the task? Again, this is a hobby. Don't ridicule people for
wanting to do things differently. They might actually learn something!

Then Admiral Grace Hopper would no longer have to worry about the rut we
have fallen into...


Jack Brindle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ham radio: wa4fib                             internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 16:07:19 +0000
From: [e-mail] (Luis Anaya)
Subject: MX or CNAME
To: "Milton D. Miller II" <[e-mail]>

>Do you want others to be able to ftp, gopher, etc to this address or
>just send mail to it?

>Do you plan on having a machine with this name later on that will still
>be served by the other server?


    the ddd.ccc.bbbb.aaa it's ONLY a E-MAIL ADRESS, so this host non-exist.
The e-mail to ddd.ccc.bbbb.aaa ([e-mail]) goes to ccc.bbbb.aaa
host.

So i only want the "name" ddd.ccc.bbbb.aaa and eee.ccc.bbbb.aaa so on for
e-mail. But ccc.bbbb.aaa is a full-services host (ftp, telnet, e-mail, son
on).

So  Is it better define a MX (Mail Exchange) like this???
                           ddd.ccc.bbbb.aaa    MX   10  ccc.bbbb.aaa

        or is it better define a CNAME  like this???
                           ddd.ccc.bbbb.aaa    A  CNAME ccc.bbbb.aaa


Luis Anaya                            Internet: [e-mail]
Serveis Informatica                   Telf    : 34 (9)77 559742
Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV)    Fax     : 34 (9)77

                    Imperial Tarraco Square n. 1
                      43201 Tarragona (Spain)

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 14:19:00 -0000
From: [e-mail] (Mike Bilow)
Subject: MX or CNAME
To: [e-mail]

Cc: [e-mail]

 LA>         Is it better define a MX (Mail Exchange) like this???
 LA>                            ddd.ccc.bbbb.aaa    MX   10  ccc.bbbb.aaa

 LA>         or is it better define a CNAME  like this???
 LA>                            ddd.ccc.bbbb.aaa    A  CNAME ccc.bbbb.aaa

In my opinion, there are two advantages for the first format.

An MX record can use a wildcard, while a CNAME record cannot.  So, the whole
group of mail addresses can be handled with a single line in your domain file,
something like:

     *.ccc.bbbb.aaa.    MX    10    ccc.bbbb.aaa.

Another issue is that the second format will always generate an extra query in
order to finally get the A record for ccc.bbbb.aaa, unless the name server is
really smart and automatically attaches it to the answer to the first request.

Note also that I used terminating periods on my sample MX record to specify
that the domain was fully qualified.  You have to be very careful about things
like that in a domain file.

-- Mike

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 19:15:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steve Sampson)
Subject: Router Project (TNC from Hell)
To: [e-mail]

Ok here's a TNC project:

Introduction

Develop code for an MS-DOS computer using Borland C++ which
has the following components:

A.    386 or Better CPU Motherboard with 2 Meg of RAM
B.    PI2 Card with one high speed DMA port, and one 1200 baud port.
C.    Optional other PI2 cards.
D.    Optional Ethernet card using Crynwr Packet Driver code.
E.    One 3.5" Floppy.

There will be no other options, serial ports will not exist.  Prior
code from NOS or JNOS can be used.

The unit will not have a keyboard or display device.  It is meant to
be placed at a remote site.  All communications with the unit will be
RF or Ethernet.

Purpose

This device will interface the RF Local Area Network with the Baseband
Local Area Network.  It will allow connected and unconnected AX.25 protocol
encapsulated IP to be converted to Ethernet encapsulated IP and vice versa.
There will be no FTP, or SMTP, but a command oriented Telnet port for
configuration will be available (both RF and Baseband access).  Other RF
protocols above Level 2 will not be used (Net/Rom).

Home or Business units (Running TCP/IP) can interface with the unit
to extend or access a network. Remote sites will not require the Ethernet,
but merely route the RF.  Left open is the option of using Omni or Beam
antennas.  Envisioned is one Omni low speed, and two beam high speed channels.

Software Conversion

The current NOS versions are designed for keyboard and monitor operation.
Using the base code as a start, modify the program to delete all references
to the keyboard and monitor.  All such traffic will come from, or be directed
to the Telnet port designed to replace these devices.

Recomendation

Use KA9Q NOS rather than JNOS.  JNOS has such a large development group that
it is almost unreadable.  NOS on the other hand is quite readable and was
designed with an editor that can handle tabs (someone deleted all the tabs in
JNOS).  Once the code is developed it should be frozen.  Any other
modifications such as BBS and interface to the washing machine and dryer should
be taken to a new baseline and version name and extended from there.  This
version should be fixed as a small router with a command interface for
configuration purposes.  The intent is to operate as a backbone on both RF
paths, LAN paths, and Internet paths.  If a BBS is desired then a JNOS box
should be interfaced to the network using Ethernet.

Motto

Speed is Life

Comments

<Requested>

--
Steve "Lolife" Sampson, N5OWK
Tax and Spend Socialist Democrat
"We can always declare bankruptcy"

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 08:54:18 +0200 (DST)
From: Gerard J van der Grinten <[e-mail]>
Subject: Router Project (TNC from Hell)
To: [e-mail]

Hello all,
PC (!) boards are simple and in large volume to get these days, TRUE.
PC boards make a easy platform, TRUE.
But to just "blast" a monitor prom who forgets all about a keyboard is a
task greater as writing the router code. There are a LOT of different
chip sets doing mmu, refresh, and other tasks for the zillion versions
of Mother(f...)boards. And the simple logic of "No keyboard present, strike
F1 to continue" indeed withholds mountain top operations. Bact to the X820...
I do think that building (Hardware and Software) is still a good thing.
It takes "some" gutts but when I look back to the starting days of AX25
when a **9* made a nice software project on the X820, I moved that to
a 6809 system with a 6854 HDLC on a system i soldered togheter in my
condo in Mountain View. A real "PC" was the price of a Yougo..
Moral: Dont be afraid to take something new and start working.
I don't have the resources anymore but I guess there are a LOT of them
available, just waiting to be called to their duties.

On the remark of " See where we got to from 1987: See where C.W. came to
after 70+ years of use.....
Regards, Gerard.
--
Gerard J van der Grinten           [e-mail] [44.137.1.1]
Elzenlaan 8                        [e-mail]         (temporary qrl)
3467 TJ Driebruggen                [e-mail] (home)
Netherlands       (+031)-34871606  Home. (+031)-52748435 Qrl.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 14:38:23 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telnet Client for JNOS
To: [e-mail]

  Hi!! Does somebody knows about a good Telnet Windows client for
  the KA9Q or JNOS?? All the telnet clients works perfectly on
  Unix machines but for the NOS it needs the \127 key as backspace
  and <cr><lf> for enter.

  Greetings!!
  Roman
Roman Torres
Programmer
Sysop Tazz BBS
[e-mail]

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

End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #128
******************************