| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 06.02.00 14:22l 221 Lines 6822 Bytes #-9589 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_36D
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/36D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0AIS<DB0ME<ON6AR<PI8HWB<
PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000206/0903Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:49908 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA29932 ; Sun, 06 Feb 00 06:45:46 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00017809 ; Sun, 06 Feb 2000 02:31:38 MET
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 00 02:25:08 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_36D>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/36D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 19:27:28 GMT
From: "Bruce" <hdobruce@lis.ab.ca>
Subject: help with AEA - PK-90
Looking for any info on the pk-90 packet TNC.
email to bruce@lions.com
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 08:54:41 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Kantroncs bugs?
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>"Rob Janssen" <nomail@rob.knoware.nl> wrote in message
>news:slrn893jqr.1np.nomail@linux.pe1chl.ampr.org...
>> Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>> >> - external modem connected in a slightly more clever way, but still a
>> >> dumb modem without any AX.25 protocol knowledge. e.g. "YAM".
>> >That's called a "TNC in KISS mode".
>> >Which ones are better than Kantronics?
>> You obviously don't know what you are talking about!
>> >> - SCC card driving dumb external modem(s).
>> >That's called an "Internet TNC".
>> A *what*?
>> Rob
>Got your attention this time?
>I also said that none of the complainers about Kantronics,
>or other TNCs, would be able to post specific suggestions
>of what one might buy instead of a TNC.
I did, Hank.
>So tell us about those "better" solutions.
>Why better?
Because they avoid issues like the one discussed in this thread.
>What cost?
Cheaper than a TNC.
>Where purchase?
Check your local market. Widely available here in Europe.
>How much?
>No answers?
>I'm not surprised.
>The TNC is obviously the best and cheapest solution.
You live in the eighties Hank. Doesn't surprise me, that is when you
wrote the package that made you famous. But the world has moved on.
Really.
>If that were *not* true, you (and the other complainers) would
>be able to provide answers. Give it your best shot.
I won't waste my time convincing you. Is impossible anyway.
That is already clearly shown by the questions you post when I propose
4 different solutions to the problem, geared at different segments of
users. You clearly think that any of the 4 solutions should be applicable
to both the home user and the 8-link node.
But fot the others: my last solution (SCC card with dumb modems) is a good
solution to the many-channels situation, and it already is for 10 years.
Hank ignorantly calls it "Internet TNC", clearly not having an idea what
it is. Like he is calling a YAM modem "KISS TNC". Haha.
I would not know anyone that dumb that he would suggest a stack of 8
TNC's as a solution to a situation where 8 9k6/19k2 links are tied
together. The two practical solutions are: PC with SCC cards totalling
8 ports (1..4 cards, depending on make and type), or a set of RMNC cards.
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWW: http://www.knoware.nl/users/rob |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:01:47 GMT
From: chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk (Chris Vine)
Subject: Kantroncs bugs?
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:53:26 +0000, Roger Barker <roger@peaksys.co.uk>
wrote:
>It's a problem that occurs when the TNC is used in terminal mode with a
>buffered UART, at a terminal baud rate greater than 2400.
>
>When the TNC's input buffer is full, and it lowers CTS, the PC is still
>likely to send a few characters. That is perfectly normal behaviour.
Is it correct behaviour though Roger - surely if CTS goes low, no more
output should take place of any kind, whether it is the UART buffers
flushing or not? Shouln't the UART handle this correctly, and why
does this only appear to happen under Windows?
It does seem curious.
Chris.
--
If replying by e-mail, remove the --nospam--
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 19:00:53 -0800
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Kantroncs bugs?
"Chris Vine" <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3894c059.5890047@news.freeserve.net...
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:53:26 +0000, Roger Barker <roger@peaksys.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> >It's a problem that occurs when the TNC is used in terminal mode with a
> >buffered UART, at a terminal baud rate greater than 2400.
> >
> >When the TNC's input buffer is full, and it lowers CTS, the PC is still
> >likely to send a few characters. That is perfectly normal behaviour.
>
> Is it correct behaviour though Roger - surely if CTS goes low, no more
> output should take place of any kind, whether it is the UART buffers
> flushing or not? Shouln't the UART handle this correctly, and why
> does this only appear to happen under Windows?
>
> It does seem curious.
Often happens because someone fails to connect the appropriate
(CTS/RTS) pins on the RS-232 connector, or has a jumper set
incorrectly on the COM card disabling RTS/CTS flow control.
And of course it will happen with poorly written software ...
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 09:56:18 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Kantroncs bugs?
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:53:26 +0000, Roger Barker <roger@peaksys.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>It's a problem that occurs when the TNC is used in terminal mode with a
>>buffered UART, at a terminal baud rate greater than 2400.
>>When the TNC's input buffer is full, and it lowers CTS, the PC is still
>>likely to send a few characters. That is perfectly normal behaviour.
>Is it correct behaviour though Roger - surely if CTS goes low, no more
>output should take place of any kind, whether it is the UART buffers
>flushing or not? Shouln't the UART handle this correctly, and why
>does this only appear to happen under Windows?
>It does seem curious.
It does not work like that... the UART does not automatically stop output
when CTS is low. Some UARTs in computer history could do that, but the
function was usually riddled with problems. The UART used in the PC will
only present the status of the CTS input as a bit in a register, and will
optionally issue an interrupt when the status changes. The other UARTS
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_36E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
