From: Ing. Jose A. Amador (zhxa@schulen.wien.at)
Date: Mon Feb 07 2000 - 23:08:42 EET
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Gerd wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Jens David wrote:
> >
> > > Hmmm, are KISS TNCs still in use someplace (seriously)?
> > >
> > > -- Jens
> >
> > Yes, here. They still work fine. Maybe I'll put them to rest (perhaps use them
> > as dumb modems) when there exists a DAMA/Flexnet master in place of the Linux
> > node. That would be nice and better to cope with bandwidth greedy and
> > impatient users ...
>
> I must fully agree here. Unfortunately, nobody wants to implement FlexNet
> under Linux. The FlexNet people like Win32 even more (I am sure they will
> soon have a Win2000 version of Flexnet available since a lot of German
> computer magazines are convinced that Win2000 is the most stable OS ever.).
It is a pity. I have been distributing Flexnet 3.3g to my users without
Internet access, and both the Baycom modem driver as the sound card driver
work very well and most important of all, they accomodate automatically to
the changing traffic. What else is best for packet rookies ? The problem
now is with those users that use fixed parameters software set for
optimistic, low load situations, during peak usage hours. You hear bumper
to bumper, clashing packets....Not only dynamic parameters, but DAMA is
needed as well, because some users do not hear the others and plain run
over them.
TSTHOST users seems to be working well with TFEMU, as well.
> And for Linux: Due to the lack of information about how FlexNet in the low
> level stage really works
That sort of copyright issue is delaying the wider adoption of Flexnet. On
the packet network you find very vocal defenders of Flexnet, but in a
way that does not suit us under Linux. Since we have no 640 K barrier
under Linux, forcibly using a separate computer for Flexnet should not be
an issue.
Once you see Flexnet in action, and actually, I have just seen the dynamic
parameters in action, you realize that it is the sensible way to go. Or
perhaps we will have to wait for other schemes to reinvent the wheel under
other names that do likewise, perhaps half as well because noone outside
of the core developers knows all the tricks involved or is willing others
with the will and the knowledge to arrive at a Linux version do it ?
I have not tried XNET or TNN, but from what I have read, it may be a bit
involved. I used AWZnode for a time, but it seemed to me it uses fully
static port access parameters...maybe I'm wrong.
What is a fact is that parameters must accomodate the load and the amount
of users. If not, it is a waste, and you end either with a truckload of
collisions or something slower than a turtle.
I am using TCPIP mixed with AX.25 on the same channel. It may coexist with
Flexnet, since both back off. But facing plain AX.25 TCPIP sometimes just
backs off too much.
> In my opinion, it is a shame having to switch from Linux to Bill's crap
> simply to have a chance to get a FlexNet compatible station running :( .
>
> Just sad about this,
Me too.
> Gerd
> --
> Gerd Roethig
> Universität Leipzig, Medizinische Klinik u. PK I
> Johannisallee 32, 04103 Leipzig
> Tel. (0341) 97 12622, Fax (0341) 97 12515
73 de Jose, CO2JA
---Ing. Jose A. Amador Fundora | Tel : (537) 20-7814 Dept. de Telecomunicaciones | E-Mail : terhi.victor@logonet.com Facultad de Ing. Electrica | ISPJAE |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 07 2000 - 23:15:27 EET