| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 20.02.97 00:54l 147 Lines 5732 Bytes #-10716 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_97_21
Read: DG7DAH GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 97/21
Path: DB0AAB<DB0AHO<DB0KFB<DB0CZ<HB9EAS<DB0GE<DB0PSC<DB0ACH<DB0ACC<DB0SM<
PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 970219/1918Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:44232 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA29349 ; Wed, 19 Feb 97 18:46:36 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00001651 ; Wed, 19 Feb 97 19:41:49 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga with SMTP
id AA00001648 ; Wed, 19 Feb 97 19:36:56 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga-1 (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.6) with SMTP
id AA00009179 ; Wed, 19 Feb 97 19:36:45 MET
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 19:13:14 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_97_21>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-1
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 97/21
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
TCP-Group Digest Wed, 19 Feb 97 Volume 97 : Issue 21
Today's Topics:
One ip address for each interface.
Routing at ip level or subnet level (was 1 ip in different interfaces)
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: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:08:50 +1100 (EST)
From: csmall@gonzo.triode.net.au
Subject: One ip address for each interface.
Simon J Mudd typed:
> In article <199702152002.UAA26631@nothing.ucsd.edu>, Brian wrote:
> Presumably those who are using ip routing use routed or rspfd because it
> exists, and because it works. Presumably over the potentially highly
> unreliable links we have these protocols may have deficiencies?
> (A question as I think they were designed for reliable networks)
RSPFd , or more correctly the RSPF protocol, was designed with radio
networks in mind. It certaintly is not the be all and end all of routing in
radio networks, but does the job better than routed.
> I had been thinking of this. this sounds like a proxy arp daemon which
> will broadcast on receiving an ARP REQUEST replying with it's own AX25
> hardware address. Potentially the station making the ARP REQUEST could
> receive more than one answer. Which one would it choose? The proxy arp
Be very careful with doing this sort of thing. Remember that just because
you don't hear someone it doesn't mean the sender cannot.
> the big question here seems to be "route at ip level" or route a "ax25
level".
> My networking knowledge is very limited. Are the any reasons to prefer one
> level over the other, apart from requiring multiple ip addresses if routing
> at the ip level between different hosts in different bands?
This is one of the regular messages that appears from time to time. At what
level do we do routing. I'd like to, if I get some time, to make a RSPF-ish
protocol that makes IP think that everyone on a subnet is directly connected
to you.
And another thing, I think most routing protocols do their thing back to
front for radio networks.
- Craig vk2xlz
--
// /\ | | | Craig Small VK2XLZ @home: csmall@gonzo.triode.net.au
||==||===|==|=| [44.136.13.17] @play: csmall@gonzo.vk2xlz.ampr.org
\\ \/ | | | finger csmall@triode.net.au for PGP key!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:54:55 +0100 (MET)
From: Julian Munoz <julian@nos.ea4rct.ampr.org>
Subject: Routing at ip level or subnet level (was 1 ip in different
interfaces)
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 csmall@gonzo.triode.net.au wrote:
[Routing at ip level or subnet level]
> This is one of the regular messages that appears from time to time. At
> what level do we do routing. I'd like to, if I get some time, to make a
> RSPF-ish protocol that makes IP think that everyone on a subnet is
> directly connected to you.
That could be a very nice project for a Engineering Student.
Something like a subnet able to switch datagrams at link layer (UI
packets, and connected packets also, why not :-) , routing with dynamic
algoritms, where each node is able to know the "distance" of the link from
the remote node to him only hearing the channel (using periodic beacons,
like RRH in rspf) and some primitives given by the node manager.
In internet, where the links have low bit error rate, the "distance" of a
link can be measured at the transmiter side, only knowing the speed and
the length of the outgoing queue.
But in packet radio, with high bit error rate maybe (I think that yes) the
most important effect is the loss of datas in the links and not the
congestion, and in this case it's better to calculate the distance of a
link at the receiver side (wich does not exclude estimate the congestion
of the channel, but at the receiver side)
That's a complicate scenario, but I am sure one day we will have the
solution !
What is hamradio without this kind of challenge ??
> And another thing, I think most routing protocols do their thing back to
> front for radio networks.
... We do highways on the sky ...
Saludos de Julian Amateur Radio Operator License: EA n 53-37081-VI
julian@radio.etsit.upm.es @@ school
julian@ea4rct.clubs.etsit.upm.es |
julian@nos.ea4rct.ampr.org | @@ radio
ea4abb@ea4een.eam.esp.eu |
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V97 #21
******************************
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
| |
