| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 26.08.96 20:17l 141 Lines 4520 Bytes #-10907 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_96_170B
Read: GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 96/170B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KCP<DB0ZKA<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0GE<LX0PAC<ON5VL<ON4RAT<DB0ACH<
DB0NDK<DB0RWI<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HWB<PI8VAD<PI8VNW
Sent: 960826/1450Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:55780 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA16127 ; Mon, 26 Aug 96 14:30:42 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.61/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00003454 ; Mon, 26 Aug 96 00:05:27 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga with SMTP
id AA00003425 ; Mon, 26 Aug 96 00:00:36 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga-1 (NET/Mac 2.3.61/7.5.4) with SMTP
id AA00007904 ; Mon, 26 Aug 96 00:00:34 MET
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 96 23:56:08 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_96_170B>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-1
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 96/170B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Terry Dawson wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
TD> You'd use SLIP, less overhead than PPP, and PPP would be
TD> overkill on a 'reliable' AX.25 connection in any case.
I strongly disagree with this view. PPP adds more data, but it isn't
"overhead" unless it does no useful work. With PPP, you get more automatic
configuration and considerably improved ease of use. True, we will likely
never need to exercise some of the enhancements of PPP, such as passing IPX in
addition to IP, but we might be able to make use of them someday if we avoid
closing off our options early.
TD> Do you really want to support that style of connection ? :)
I think this is a the real question. The more thought I give to Phil's
proposal, the more I realize that it is completely at odds with what Phil has
always proposed in the past.
-- Mike
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 16:24:28 -0700
From: brian@nothing.UCSD.EDU (Brian Kantor)
Subject: PPP/SLIP in connected AX25?
We wouldn't have to spend so much time worrying about one or two bytes of
overhead if we'd get off our God-damned butts and improve the link speeds
to something approaching modern technology.
$500 for 56kb isn't all that unaffordable, eh?
- Brian
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 15:01:30 +1000
From: Terry Dawson <terry@perf.no.itg.telstra.com.au>
Subject: PPP/SLIP in connected AX25?
Mike Bilow wrote:
> I strongly disagree with this view. PPP adds more data, but it isn't
> "overhead" unless it does no useful work. With PPP, you get more automatic
> configuration and considerably improved ease of use. True, we will likely
> never need to exercise some of the enhancements of PPP, such as passing IPX
in
> addition to IP, but we might be able to make use of them someday if we avoid
> closing off our options early.
I take your point. despite the advantages that ppp offers, it still
seems
like overkill. Can you seriously imagine using any IPX based service via
such
a connection ? Dare I suggest it is awful enough on a nice wire based
ether
network without making it suffer.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating I suppose.
> TD> Do you really want to support that style of connection ? :)
> I think this is a the real question. The more thought I give to Phil's
> proposal, the more I realize that it is completely at odds with what Phil
has
> always proposed in the past.
Heh. I profess to have been baffled by the proposal too. I'm pretty sure
Phil wasn't intending the stuff to go via radio in the fashion described
though. I interpreted Phils message to be solving the problem of how to
get Win95/Win3.1 users to use their normal Win based winsock
applications
and interface them to NOS without needing to have new software written.
Terry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 18:39:47 +1000
From: Terry Dawson <terry@perf.no.itg.telstra.com.au>
Subject: PPP/SLIP in connected AX25?
Brian Kantor wrote:
>
> We wouldn't have to spend so much time worrying about one or two bytes of
> overhead if we'd get off our God-damned butts and improve the link speeds
> to something approaching modern technology.
>
> $500 for 56kb isn't all that unaffordable, eh?
ha ha. Hey, no arguments from me on that point! It would be awfully
lonely
here as a 56k user though.
Terry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 22:04:41 EDT
From: nh6yw@nh6yw-5.ampr.org
unsubscribe nh6yw@nh6yw-5.ampr.org
>Internet:nh6yw@nh6yw-5.ampr.org<>Telnt:44.14.10.20<>nh6yw@nh6yw-5.hi.usa.oc>
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V96 #170
******************************
You can send your message for this bulletin
to: tcp-group@pa2aga on .AMPR.ORG-net
or: tcpaga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu on BBS-net
------
NOT TO: pa2aga@pa2aga or pa2aga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu PLEASE!!
It will get posted automatically within a few days
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
