[FADCA] Protocol Warrior behavior:

[Dan Babilla]

All,

I think Chuck nailed it when he states:

> We need to try to be as blind as possible to "personal preferences" as 
> there
> is no "universal protocol" as these guys would want us to think.

And:

> Also some tend to mix protocols, there are those that are link layer,
> ax25, either-
> net, 802.11 for higher speed links are some examples, PacTor, Amtor, and 
> the
> other HF link layer protocols are some that come to mind
> The there are network layer, X.25,ROSE/FPAC as a family are one, IP as a
> family is another, NetRom and it's derivatives are another.

If we build a network to pass traffic across the state it needs to be 
capable of supporting as many protocols as
possible. Including "keyboard chatting". Using Linux and layered protocols 
is the only way to go.

Yes BUD, there are still HAMs that like to connect and chat keyboard to 
keyboard......at least that is the main complaint I've over heard at 
hamfests and club meeting about FADCA.....is that the Florida layered 
network does not support AX.25 connects with keyboard to keyboard, just 
e-mail........true or not, that is what is perceived.

GO Linux network!!!!!!!

73's

Dan KA0OXH

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chuck Hast" <wchast at gmail.com>
To: "Florida Amateur Digital Communication Association" 
<fadca at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [FADCA] Protocol Warrior behavior:


> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:59:32 -0500, Rick Muething <rmuething at cfl.rr.com> 
> wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> I feel strongly that if our hobby is to survive and hopefully advance we
>> have to be open to developing and using new technologies. Years ago I had 
>> an
>> AM transmitter and a Model 15 Teletype and while I wish I still had those
>> antiques I am glad they have fallen out of favor.
>
>
> Alright!!! Rick, did you have a KSR or a ASR? I used to have both, I also 
> had
> a great collection of M28's and a M35ASR.... Those were the days when oil
> and electricity mixed, would I go back? yes as museum piece just to show
> them working, but on a day to day operation, no WAY!! Those old machines
> were fun to watch, the Teletypes, Klienschmidts, Mites and other 
> mechanical
> machines. But their time has passed. The same holds for a lot of other 
> stuff.
> This is why I want to see the network move to Linux, we have all kinds of
> protocols to work with and all we have to do is add them to the stack, 
> then
> we can test them on a more or less level basis and find out what works 
> best
> for a particular application, what works best for say hf which should use 
> short
> frames a lot of FEC and other techniques to recover from a noisy fading 
> link
> would be too much overhead for a nice clean VHF/UHF/Microwave link. There
> you want long frames, selective reject, less FEC (still good to have for 
> all but
> the best links).
>
> Your protocols also need to be as short and lowest overhead as possible,
> also encaping one protocol inside of another to take advantage what that
> particular one offers. The mix and mingle is a challenge, so we can not 
> set
> down with anyone and use it with a sink or swim attitude. That is my 
> problem
> with the fellow who wrote the article, if you are paddling his way you are 
> just
> fine, but if you are going down a different path you find that he is a 
> firey
> protocol warriour as he calls them.
>
> We need to try to be as blind as possible to "personal preferences" as 
> there
> is no "universal protocol" as these guys would want us to think.
>
> You fellows have done a wonderful job with WinLink, I am sure that things 
> will
> evolve and there will be something else come down the road, but like the 
> M15
> it worked and did a yeomans job for years until it was finally removed 
> from
> service for obvious reasons. Many of us cried to see them go, but looking 
> back
> they opened the door for doing data in its most basic form just as the 
> protocols
> we have used in amateur radio have done the same thing. Some of them will
> stay around either because the are quite flexible and have very low 
> overhead
> others will be kept around just because "it is mine and nothing can 
> replace it"
> Those that are flexible will mutate into things better those that fall
> into the second
> category will find that sooner or later like the mule, they have no 
> progeny and
> go away with the hardheaded owners.
>
>
> Also some tend to mix protocols, there are those that are link layer,
> ax25, either-
> net, 802.11 for higher speed links are some examples, PacTor, Amtor, and 
> the
> other HF link layer protocols are some that come to mind
> The there are network layer, X.25,ROSE/FPAC as a family are one, IP as a
> family is another, NetRom and it's derivatives are another.
>
> The trick is to match the network protocol to the link layer so that you 
> get the
> most efficient transfer of data, on a personal note I have liked the
> protocol used
> by ROSE/FPAC because it only adds 3-5 chars of overhead to each packet,
> also if you are sending 256 byte packets of data at a switch, it will 
> extend the
> length of the network layer packets to take into account the additional 
> network
> overhead. I am sure that there are other protocols that can work just as 
> well at
> the network layer, or there will be others developed, that again is why I 
> want
> to have a network device that we can add protocols to as we get them 
> rather
> than have to change out the whole box.
>
> Anyhow so much for that one.
> Y'all enjoy now!!
>
>
>
> -- 
> Chuck Hast
> To paraphrase my flight instructor;
> "the only dumb question is the one you DID NOT ask resulting in my going
> out and having to identify your bits and pieces in the midst of torn
> and twisted metal."
> _______________________________________________
> FADCA mailing list
> FADCA at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca