| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.09.00 23:24l 216 Lines 7710 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_256D
Read: DC1TMA GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/256D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0HAG<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<
PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000920/1850Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:16246 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_256D
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 00 20:17:29 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_256D>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> That will be very expensive for them as well.
>
> 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 |
> +----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:02:45 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: TCP/IP Address
"Shane Deering" <vk3bvp@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:8q4fau$63d$1@perki.connect.com.au...
>
> "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote in message
> news:AYex5.3174$Cq6.260063@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Shane Deering" <vk3bvp@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> > news:8q3sr2$ikm$1@perki.connect.com.au...
> >
> > <deletia>
> >
> > >
> > > I'd like to see an interface option like ethrax25 for SNOS. The code is
> GPL
> > > and freely available. What I really want is JNOS with an interface to
> the
> > > windows tcpip stack. Then it would be sort of like Wingate and Mailtraq
> > > rolled into one, but with all the packet interface options.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Could you explain in a bit more
> > detail what that interface would be / do? As far as I'm aware, SNOS
> > and etherax25 have nothing at all in common, they do different things.
> > You could, perhaps, use etherax25 to connect your Winsock over
> > ham radio to another machine running SNOS ... and use a serial port
> > and TNC instead of that second ethernet controller :-)
>
> I have to go out in a minute so it won't be detailed.
> I thought that SNOS used BPQEITHER to talk to the packet network via
> another computer that has normal packet interfaces. Why not add a normal
> packet
> interface to SNOS.
I think you should look at the web pages before you "think" too many
wrong things. SNOS has ax.25, NET/ROM, tcp/ip, can talk to TNCs
on serial ports, supports HAL P38 and PCI4000 controllers
> Of course they have nothing in common. The idea of using ethrax25 is as
> interface
> option like bpqeither. To be used as well as or instead of it with SNOS.
> If you have eithrax25 you don't need to connect to another SNOS computer,you
> can connect to any *NOS computer over packet.
> I just thought it would be a good interface to have as well as bpqeither.
SNOS does all that.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Are there any other solutions available?
> > >
> > > Guess you knew I was going to say ethrax25.
> > > To my way of thinking it offers the easiest way of getting windows
> > > end user client tcpip software onto the packet tcpip network.
> >
> > Not what SNOS is about ...
> >
> > > All you have to do is install the driver, hook up your KISS mode TNC
> > > and config your software (that you're already using on the internet).
> >
> > As far as I was aware, etherax25 allows you to stuff tcp/ip
> > out over a TNC. No services, nntp <-> bulletin translation, etc.
>
> Good isn't it. Why tie yourself down to one bit of packet software.
> I use Mailtraq which does that and a lot more.
>
> > So it doesn't solve the most important issue: maintaining compatibility
> > with the existing packet network applications. SNOS my experiment
> > to do this: provide the bridge between the existing BBS network
> > protocols (e.g. forwarding) and the tcp/ip protocols (e.g. nntp
> > distribution).
> JNOS<>Mailtraq does that too, but you aren't tied to using them.
>
> >
> > > I've had a quick look at AGW, but only being able to use
> > > the tcpip side of it for 45 minute (without registering it) has put me
> > > off doing tests with it. Maybe one day.
> >
> > I never had any luck with it. Should try it again sometime.
> >
> > --
> >
> > ... Hank
> >
> > http://horedson.home.att.net
> >
> >
> >
>
> My times up.
> Shane..
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:58:02 GMT
From: "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org>
Subject: TCP/IP Address
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Charles Brabham wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with all of the stated opinions as to why
> amateur tcpip never "flew"... Everybody's got opinions... Here's mine:
>
> Amateur tcpip never "flew" because of the hostile, anti-ham attitudes and
> actions consistently displayed by amateur tcpip buffs, over the years. The
> constant foundationless vapor-hype, coupled with the almost total lack of
> accomplishment from the amateur tcpip community went over about like feces
> in the punch bowl. The constant insults and accusations directed against the
> general Ham community didn't go over too well, either.
>
> That's why the great majority of Hams wouldn't touch amateur tcpip with a
> ten-foot pole. It might (or might not) be great, but that doesn't really
> matter after the way amateur tcpip buffs have alienated the general Ham
> population over the years. Nobody wants to be associated with them, no
> matter what they may or may not have to offer.
>
> They pissed in the well, and nobody was impressed.
You could have put that more simply:
TCP/IP over amateur radio never caught on because to properly set up a network
requires COOPERATION by the participants - a trait that amateur radio
licensees
generally lack.
"Too many cooks spoil the broth."
For amateur radio, it's more like:
"TWO cooks spoil the broth."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:22:57 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: TCP/IP Address
Gert Leunen <Gert.Leunen@tijd.com> wrote:
>"Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote in message
>news:tD5x5.32542$M37.880409@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Are there any other solutions available?
>Have you ever heard of the MCB-152? Yes, some Europeans actually do some
>development from time to time :-) The MCB-152 is a general-purpose
>micro-controller board (based on a special Intel 80c152 microcontroller with
>special communication gear on board). Our first firmware project was the
>KISS-firmware (just to get the toy usable). Next, the SLIP firmware was
>developed (now going into its third revision). What makes this SLIP firmware
>so special is that it behaves as an ordinary telephone modem (AT command
>set) towards the modem and applies classic Packet-Radio to its radio-port.
>Result: you can
> simply use the generic modem driver that comes with your OS (Win9x, NT,
>W2K, Linux, MacOS, ...). You setup a dialup connection like you do to reach
>your ISP and there you go! No proprietary drivers to install, no tedious
>configuration (you already have done it once to get connected to the
>Internet), what more could you ask for?
Yes, that is a great solution. I have discussed with PA0HZP about a
successor to the OptoPcScc card (we saw the problem of higher speeds and
obsolescence of the ISA bus), and we have made some basic sketches of a
single board using a Motorola 68EN360 that would do the above, but with an
Ethernet interface to the PC or Mac or whatever.
Just standard IP-over-ethernet on the PC side, and standard AX.25 on the
packet radio channels (3 channels up to 2 Mbit/s fullduplex on this chip).
One American packet equipment manufacturer was informally interested in
reselling this.
We never continued this project because we believed there would not be many
hams that would consider the cost acceptable (many even thought the SCC
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_256E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
