| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 04.05.03 19:16l 39 Lines 1296 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1241-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Apr 27, 4/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0ZWI<DB0CHZ<DB0ERF<DB0MRW<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<RZ6HXA<SP7MGD<VK7AX<
ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030430/1337Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:64849 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1241-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: AX.25 & TCP/IP [was: Another thing I'd like to see...]
From: "Gregg G. Wonderly" <gregg@skymaster.cytetech.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:41:16 -0500
X-Message-Number: 27
>"Gregg G. Wonderly" wrote:
><snip>
>
>>As I stated, there's lots of reasons that AX.25 is the wrong protocol...
>
>The "least common denominator" is the TNC. AX.25 is what all of the TNC's
use,
>right? Does someone make a TCP/IP based TNC? I ask from ignorance, nothing
>more.
Well, we know that many used to use TCP/IP with TNCs using various link
layer protocols... IP doesn't have anything in it for link layer control.
And defering all of that to TCPs timeouts and checksums for errors is
ineffecient, because of the potential of many segments forwarding bad data.
We need a link layer protocol that works better in the hidden transmitter
scenario. We need a link layer protocol that provides more flexibility in
interconnecting networks and more explicit routing capabilities so that the
IP layer information could suggest routing controls to the link layer
interface...
Plus many other issues and lessons which others know of and/or have learned
that we need to include...
-----
gregg@cytetech.com (Cyte Technologies Inc)
---
END OF DIGEST
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
