|
Packet Radio Digest - Volume 91, Number 79
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
From wang!elf.wang.com!ucsd.edu!packet-radio-relay Tue Apr 2 14:44:22 1991 remote from tosspot
Received: by tosspot (1.64/waf)
via UUCP; Tue, 02 Apr 91 20:09:21 EST
for lee
Received: from somewhere by elf.wang.com id aa19539; Tue, 2 Apr 91 14:44:21 GMT
Received: from ucsd.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP
(5.61/UUNET-shadow-mx) id AA25942; Tue, 2 Apr 91 09:14:34 -0500
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA13426
sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun
Tue, 2 Apr 91 04:30:12 -0800 for brian
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA13412
sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun
Tue, 2 Apr 91 04:30:08 -0800 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odb -oQ/var/spool/lqueue -oi -fpacket-radioy packet-radio-list
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 04:30:05 PST
From: Packet-Radio Mailing List and Newsgroup </dev/[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Packet-Radio Digest V91 #79
To: [email protected]
Packet-Radio Digest Tue, 2 Apr 91 Volume 91 : Issue 79
Today's Topics:
Mentor needed
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[email protected]>
Send subscription requests to: <[email protected]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [email protected].
Archives of past issues of the Packet-Radio Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/packet-radio".
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: 1 Apr 91 23:59:54 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.[email protected]
Subject: Mentor needed
To: [email protected]
I am interested in Amateur radio. I would like to get started and
give the required exams. What I want to request from you pros out
there is for someone to help and guide in this process. I need to
practice and I need to learn from someone with experience. Would
someone like to take on this task.
I live in the Seattle area and have a degree in EE.
Shailendra
beaver.cs.washington.edu!sumax!ole.uucp.ssave
------------------------------
Date: 1 Apr 91 22:29:31 GMT
From: epic!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com
To: [email protected]
References <skcm.670222049@ise>, <1991Mar29.223715.5564@bellcore.bellcore.com>, <skcm.670398101@ise>y-To : [email protected].com
Subject : Re: ? how to route with tcpip
In article <skcm.670398101@ise>, [email protected] (Carl Makin) writes:
|> In the case of a BBS forwarding traffic then the BBS is the "originating"
|> station. In the case of someone navigating his way thru the network
|> then HE remains the "originating station" despite how many links may
|> be carrying his traffic.
This STILL makes no sense. There is absolutely no fundamental
difference between an autoforwarding BBS and an IP router. Both are
store-and-forward packet switches. Both operate automatically,
forwarding connectionless traffic from a source toward a destination
on top of AX25 frames that reflect only the immediate transmitter and
receiver. The only differences are the following:
1. (The BBS) generally uses magnetic disks for store-and-forward
buffer storage while the other uses dynamic RAM.
2. The network layer protocols are a little different - one uses
stream ASCII (the mail message format); the other uses formatted
binary (the IP header).
It is true that the network layer addresses in the BBS network are
callsigns while IP addresses are not. But the three big uses of IP,
mail, FTP and telnet, usually involve exchanging, in the TCP data
stream, the names of the originating and destination station or user
names as part of the application protocol. Since the amateur TCP/IP
convention is to make the user's callsign part of the system name, you
have a situation very similar to autoforwarding BBSes. In neither
situation are the originating and ultimate destination stations
identified in each packet, but they are identified in the data stream
near the beginning of a connection.
I hesitate to encourage you to use this argument with the DoTC because
it could very well result in a proclamation that autoforwarding BBSes
are illegal too... such is the nature of a bureaucrat, I'm afraid.
Phil
------------------------------
End of Packet-Radio Digest
******************************
|
|
