| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 22.06.96 17:30l 228 Lines 7063 Bytes #-10975 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_96_130A
Read: DG7DAH GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 96/130A
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0HOT<DB0LPZ<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0OBK<DB0ACC<PI8DRS<
PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8ZAA<PI8HWB<PI8VAD<PI8VNW
Sent: 960622/0127Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:18871 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA12076 ; Sat, 22 Jun 96 00:13:47 UTC
Received: from pa2aga-10 by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.60/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00009127 ; Sat, 22 Jun 96 01:16:08 MET
Received: from pa2aga-10 by pa2aga-10 (NET/Mac 2.3.60/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00005137 ; Sat, 22 Jun 96 01:08:13 MET
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 16:51:33 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_96_130A>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-10
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 96/130A
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
TCP-Group Digest Thu, 20 Jun 96 Volume 96 : Issue 130
Today's Topics:
-D96, -D192
KA9Q PPP negotiation fix
NIC billing for AMPR.ORG (21 msgs)
Re: NIC billing for AMPR.ORG
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu>.
Subscription requests to <TCP-Group-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available
(by FTP only) from ftp.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: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 21:38:44 GMT-180, EST
From: "Apostolos K. Salkintzis" <SALKI@voreas.ee.duth.gr>
Subject: -D96, -D192
Is there a way to distiguish a KS-900L-D96 from a KS-900L-D192 without
having to put them in operation ?
Regards
Salki
_____ _____
( ___ )-------------------------------------------------------------( ___ )
| / | Apostolis K. Salkintzis | \ |
| / | Democritus University of Thrace | \ |
| / | Electrical & Computer Engineering Department | \ |
| / | Internet: salki@ee.duth.gr, Fax: +30 541-27264 | \ |
| / | Voice: +30 541-77452 (Home), +30 541-79957 or +30 541-79599 | \ |
|___| Home Address: PO.Box 11, GR67100 Xanthi-Greece |___|
(_____)-------------------------------------------------------------(_____)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 12:37:00 -0000
From: mikebw@bilow.bilow.uu.ids.net (Mike Bilow)
Subject: KA9Q PPP negotiation fix
* Forwarded (from: Netmail) by Mike Bilow using BilowMail0.2.
* Original dated: Jun 19 '96, 11:00
From: art@nld.toolnet.org (Gerard van Essen)
To: mikebw@ids.net
Hello, All!
For those who are interested, below is what I changed in KA9Q to fix the
problems I was having with KA9Q and PPP connections with a Livingston
portmaster (ComOs 3.3.1).
The change I made was in the source file PPPFSM.C, in the function
fsm_timeout(). This source module came from the DIS version of KA9Q (DIS KA9Q
2.16).
To be sure, this is what is written at the top of the source module:
--< quote >--
/*
* PPPFSM.C -- PPP Finite State Machine
*
* This implementation of PPP is declared to be in the public domain.
*
* Jan 91 Bill_Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu
* Computer Systems Consulting Services
*
* Acknowledgements and correction history may be found in PPP.C
*/
/****************************************************************************
* $Id: pppfsm.c 1.3 93/07/16 11:49:06 ROOT_DOS Exp $
* 14 Jul 93 1.3 GT Fix warnings. *
****************************************************************************/
--< unquote >--
I changed the function to what it is below:
--< quote >--
/****************************************************/
/* Timeout while waiting for reply from remote host */
static void
fsm_timeout(vp)
void *vp;
{
struct fsm_s *fsm_p = (struct fsm_s *)vp;
PPPtrace = fsm_p->ppp_p->trace;
PPPiface = fsm_p->ppp_p->iface;
fsm_log( fsm_p, "Timeout" );
switch(fsm_p->state) {
// Lines below changed by Gerard van Essen (art@users.toolnet.org), 12jun96
// Remove fsmACK_Sent from this list
case fsmREQ_Sent:
case fsmACK_Rcvd:
if (fsm_p->retry > 0) {
fsm_sendreq(fsm_p);
fsm_p->state = fsmREQ_Sent;
} else {
fsm_log(fsm_p, "Request retry exceeded");
fsm_reset(fsm_p);
}
break;
// Lines below changed by Gerard van Essen (art@users.toolnet.org), 12jun96
// A separate 'case' for fsmACK_Sent, where the state is not changed
// to fsmREQ_Sent
case fsmACK_Sent:
if (fsm_p->retry > 0) {
fsm_sendreq(fsm_p);
} else {
fsm_log(fsm_p, "Request retry exceeded");
fsm_reset(fsm_p);
}
break;
// Rest of function is unchanged..
case fsmTERM_Sent:
if (fsm_p->retry > 0) {
fsm_sendtermreq(fsm_p);
} else {
fsm_log(fsm_p, "Terminate retry exceeded");
(*fsm_p->pdc->stopping)(fsm_p);
fsm_reset(fsm_p);
}
break;
case fsmCLOSED:
case fsmLISTEN:
case fsmOPENED:
/* nothing to do */
break;
}
}
--< unquote >--
I recompiled and it now works fine for me and my Portmaster! :-)
Groetjes, ........ === Art ===
___ uugate 0.34 (OS/2 2.30)
- Origin: N1BEE BBS +1 401 944 8498 n1bee-bbs.bilow.uu.ids.net
(1:323/107.107)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 07:30:00 -0000
From: mikebw@bilow.bilow.uu.ids.net (Mike Bilow)
Subject: NIC billing for AMPR.ORG
James R. Hay wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
JRH> Obviously the invoice which Brian received was generated
JRH> automatically. I was under the (probably wrong) impression
JRH> that domains previously registered were not subject to the
JRH> registration fees.
No, it will be $50 per year for everyone in COM, NET, or ORG.
JRH> As an alternative, what would it take to get some form of
JRH> top-level domain which isn't subject to interNIC's fees?
We could declare ourselves our own country, I suppose. Perhaps there should
be
a special top-level domain for truly international organizations.
-- Mike
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 02:52:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Crompton Administrator <admin@marconi.crompton.com>
Subject: NIC billing for AMPR.ORG
On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, James R. Hay wrote:
> Obviously the invoice which Brian received was generated automatically.
> I was under the (probably wrong) impression that domains previously
> registered were not subject to the registration fees.
>
That was not my understanding - I thought they were going to start
charging for all domains on a yearly basis at some point. I supsect that
everyone will get one of these notices - I got mine recently.
I do not think that we should pay it without first attempting to have
it waived. You would have to look at the rules - are any domains
fees waived - seems to me there was something about that. I think the
.us domain is free not sure about others??
To be continued in digest: tcp_96_130B
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
