> >> One vote for continued co-operation, at a reduced level of bitching and
> >> moaning.
> >> [snip]
> >
> > Two.
> Three.
Four (or was that Fore!?!?)
Jack Spitznagel, DDS, PhD
KD4IZ
College of Dentistry
UT - Memphis
(901) 488-6242
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 13:38:59
From: jks@giskard.utmem.edu
Subject: Changing environment (was RE: Dos Computers)
To: tcp-group@UCSD.EDU
Just completing a thought started by Jeff's message:
> All we lack is the SLIP-TNC ... but we have a good
> start on one with the X1J code.
It seems as though we have more than X1J alone. It might not be a bad idea
to look seriously again at employing "AMPR enabled" driver/TSR level stuff
and freeware TCP/IP socket stacks.
I see value in trying to work out some of the existing problems with IP
apps in DOS that make assumptions about the nature of the network being
used. We should also try to resolve assumptions in "non-AMPR enabled"
stacks and drivers that force resends and sockets to time-out before a slow
link has a chance to ACK. This would allow the use of "well-behaved" DOS
(and Win) IP apps over the air.
The X1J solution is certainly one option, but it leaves out those using
internal SCC cards instead of TNC's. To help the other folks consider
putting the answers to these questions into a "developer's FAQ" for
pre-planing. (I'm sure someone on tcp-group knows the answer to at least one
of these now!)
1. Is there a smooth way to get AX.25 protocol into, say, a system driver
or "packet-driver-like-entity" for the major internal SCC cards like the
PI/PI2/DRSI boards? Could it be done so that existing software could use it?
2. Would you want AX.25 and SCC together or keep them separate?
3. Does Trumpet socket software work over radio now at all? If so can you
use all common speeds, or does it require 9600 or greater as a minimum?
4. Is Trumpet copyleft? Should a "radio enabled" version be engineered if
so and it needs to be?
Looking at TNC's:
5. What would the best way to re-engineer a TNC2 with modified X1J (I assume
IP only with ARP features put in!) so as to not limit speed? (Major flaw as
I see it is doing ANYTHING serious at 1200!!)
I'd love to see some *clear* thinking about any of these questions!
Jack Spitznagel, DDS, PhD
KD4IZ
College of Dentistry
UT - Memphis
(901) 488-6242
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 15:58:07 -0700
From: Phil Karn <karn@unix.ka9q.ampr.org>
Subject: Computers, ethernet and lightning protection
To: jra1854@tntech.edu
If you can't replace coax with fiber, you should at least ground the
ethernet coax. The spec requires that this be done at exactly one point.
You should do it between the NOS box and your other systems.
Phil
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 04:31:56 GMT
From: garry@cyanea.apana.org.au ("Garry Hawgood")
Subject: Port 513 call/response...gap fill
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Seems a portion of my previous message got 'bitten' out before it made it
from here to the digest at least.
For those who may be interested, here is what it should have read:
Because my current jnos configuration does not correctly respond to such a call,I am under a little 'pressure' to change to either a FreeBSD or Linux TCP/IP
implementation. Both of which support port 513 in their native TCP/IP it seems.
Regards....
Garry VK4KE
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 06:00:45 GMT
From: aa7tq@ramp.com (Dave Kelley)
Subject: unsubscibe
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
unsubscribe
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 12:15:30 EDT
From: RobertkC@aol.com
Subject: unsubscribe
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Help!
Is there a was that I can unsubscribe to the TCP-GROUP? I have tried several
