Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [BPQ32] feature requests

Expand Messages
  • PE1RDW
    Ah yes, almost forgot about that litle restriction. It comes from a limitation in the tcp/ip stack, every interface needs to have it s own mac adress and for
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 26, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Ah yes, almost forgot about that litle restriction.
      It comes from a limitation in the tcp/ip stack, every interface needs to
      have it's own mac adress and for ax25 this is the interface call.
      Luckely applications can still assign their own calls so you can work
      around it but it remains a kludge.

      And it is always better for portability to have your own stack so you
      don't need to maintain different code for linux and windows.

      And it is very easy under linux to tunnel other ax25 stacks trough the
      kernel ax25 stack with net2kiss so people can still use it if they want.

      --
      73 Andre PE1RDW

      On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:08:22 +0100, John Wiseman <john.wiseman@...>
      wrote:

      > Andre,
      >
      > I was originally going to use the kernel ax.25 stack, but found it
      > needed a
      > unique call for each interface, which is pretty restrictive if you want a
      > multiport node. So I decided to use my own code.
      >
      > 73, John
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      > PE1RDW
      > Sent: 26 December 2012 22:00
      > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] feature requests
      >
      > Good to hear there is so much progress, offcourse for your linux version
      > you
      > probably won't need a ax25 stack because you can just use the one in the
      > kernel, although that code has not been touched in years and is from
      > what I
      > been told rather sloppy, I have done eax25 with linux before and was
      > impressed with how wel it preformed.
      >
      > Advantage of using your own code is that you will have a lot better
      > controll
      > over timing and can do tricks the kernel can not do like adoptive timing
      > but
      > usualy the gain of that is limited especialy in today's channels that
      > are a
      > lot less congested then they where in the 90's
      >
      > --
      > 73 Andre PE1RDW
    • Charles Brabham
      I wonder if this has anything to do with the FlexNet folks sticking with DOS and Windows, some years back. A Linux version was often requested, and once
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 26, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I wonder if this has anything to do with the FlexNet folks sticking with
        DOS and Windows, some years back. A Linux version was often requested,
        and once considered, but in the end no Linux version was ever offered.

        73 DE Charles, N5PVL


        On 12/26/2012 4:36 PM, PE1RDW wrote:
        > Ah yes, almost forgot about that litle restriction.
        > It comes from a limitation in the tcp/ip stack, every interface needs to
        > have it's own mac adress and for ax25 this is the interface call.
        > Luckely applications can still assign their own calls so you can work
        > around it but it remains a kludge.
        >
        > And it is always better for portability to have your own stack so you
        > don't need to maintain different code for linux and windows.
        >
        > And it is very easy under linux to tunnel other ax25 stacks trough the
        > kernel ax25 stack with net2kiss so people can still use it if they want.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.