HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jseboldt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (John Seboldt)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: KISS and TCP/IP
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:25:07 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.

cbaechle@iiic.ethz.ch (Cedric Baechler HE9CUN) writes:
>
>Hi people,
>
>I'm interesting in building a small packet modem. The problem is by
>TCP/IP : I need the KISS protocol. 
>Does exist a piece of software that implements KISS such that it would
>possible for me to use the TCP/IP protocol?
>I don't see another way to solve my problem :-(
>
>Thanks for any help.
>
>73 de Cedric

If you use a Macintosh, I know.  If you do not use a Macintosh, I don't know!

I got the following from
Aaron Wohl <aw0g+@andrew.cmu.edu>
 
>SoftKiss is an init/cdev/driver that drives a ham radio
>modem from a macintosh. It gets your mac on packet radio
>without a tnc.  Softkiss can use poor mans packet modems
>from the IBMPC world.  This is version 1.2.1.  The previous
>version was an application which required multifinder.  This
>version is an init/cdev/driver that can run under finder or
>multifinder on any mac system 6.x or 7.x.
>
>Softkiss is available from internet host akutaktak.andrew.cmu.edu
>[128.2.35.1] as /aw0g/softkiss.1.2.1.hqx.  It is also on compuserv
>hamnet sig lib 9
>
>NET/Mac is also required.  It is available from the same archives.

Any IBM folks have a solution?

: John Seboldt...Minneapolis, MN...As a ham, K0JD...as a human,       :
: right-brained yet right-handed...as a musician, techie yet creative :
:   UUCP: {crash, tcnet, petrus, quest}!orbit!pnet51!jseboldt         :
:   ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!jseboldt@nosc.mil                        :
:   INET: jseboldt@pnet51.orb.mn.org                                  :
From: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Date: 14 Aug 92 07:18:48 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc

In article <1992Aug10.063334.29133@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>What hardware methods are currently available?

>Our best national and international WAN technology is 300 baud HF BBS
>forwarding. It's thruput is about 15 bytes/second. It's suitable for
>Email.

You left out the Internet backbone links, sometimes referred to as
"wormholes". There are quite a few regional TCP/IP networks that are
linked to each other through the regular Internet, using IP-inside-IP
encapsulation techniques that have been in KA9Q NOS well over a year.
With the growth of the Internet it is not hard at all to find at least
one site in a given metropolitan area that has both access to the
Internet and a ham contact interested in putting up a gateway.

These links provide continuous real-time wide area connectivity that
at the moment simply isn't attainable in any other way. The only
amateur-provided links that could even come close to providing a
similar grade of service require a geostationary amateur satellite
such as AMSAT Phase IV, which has been shelved indefinitely due to
lack of funds.

I see no reason to deprecate a long-haul linking technology just
because it's not radio. Hams ought to take a "systems integration"
approach to networking and be as flexible as possible in using
whatever is available to get the job done. Personally, I've always
thought that the packet radio problems most worth solving are those
involved in building high metropolitan area networks, where radio
makes the most sense in the first place. Long-haul HF is basically an
anachronism, and except for its potential last-ditch emergency uses it
is really a dead-end technology.

Phil
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: rob@phoenix.erc.clarkson.edu (Rob Logan)
Subject: getting packet IP numbers and netmasks
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:42:49 GMT

K2CC (clarkson university, Potsdam, NY) just started running ka9q's NOS
on 2m with netrom routing to the rest of the NEDA net. 

I used a netmask off of clarkson's net to assign some starter IP
numbers, but I would like to get a real amateur netmask.  I'd also like
to find a netrom route (or innernet) to the rest of the amateur tcp/ip
net. 

where should I go for this information?

				Rob

--
			rob@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
Rob Logan           AMA        -----|-----   ARRL         n2qcn@k2cc.ny.usa.na
Clarkson ERC        IRCHA   *>=====[_]L)     EAA          AirBorn
Potsdam, NY 13699   PRA           -'-`-      PADI         USSA
From: 6500hage@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (William F. Hagen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: PK232 vs 1278
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:57:52 GMT


I have both the 1278 and 232, use them for listening only. I dont like the 1278 method of choosing the filters and modems. too confusing.
The 232 seems to decode rtty easier. 
I dont like the cartridge software for the 232 using a commodore 64. The stuff is buggy, and the type of printer support is too limited. The printer support on the 1278 is a little less limited, but not much for the c64, still not good enough.
I still have not gotten the 1278 to print successfully using the commodore software, but have with the 232, by buying the only printer supported and it works fine.. there are other bugs in both softwares, I hope you guys with ibmers have better luck.  

Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.packet:2177 rec.radio.amateur.misc:14039
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Packet Radio Satellites
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:36:09 GMT
Distribution: na

gws@n8emr.cmhnet.org (Gary Sanders) writes:
>KITSAT-OSCAR 23 IS VERY SIMILAR IN
>FUNCTION TO UOSAT-OSCAR 22.  IT WILL PROVIDE PACKET
>STORE-AND-FORWARD CAPABILITY AT 9600 BITS PER SECOND, ENHANCING
>WORLDWIDE PACKET COMMUNICATIONS.

Hmm.  Can any of the OSCAR satellites talk to each other?  It occurs to me
that if there were enough OSCAR satellites in LEO, they could perform
real-time packet routing between themselves to provide a long-haul backbone.
The problem might be that they'd have trouble hearing each other without
dish antennas, and if they were in elliptical orbits, they couldn't rely on
fixed-aim dishes.  If the satellites were sufficiently close in angular
separation, perhaps dedicated earth stations could perform the inter-satellite
relay function.  4 hops would cut the effective throughput to under 2400 baud
(for a single packet that requires a reply, that is; for bulk data transfer
using FTP and TCP/IP, say, where acks aren't required for every packet, the
throughput would rise toward 9600), but that's still well above the current
300 baud HF links.

Routing would be an issue, but if the earth stations knew the approximate
geographic location of each IP address, it could easily make a good guess as
to which satellites (if any) are visible to each destination.

No doubt this idea has already been beaten to death by the hard-core pacsat
folks.
From: 6500hage@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (William F. Hagen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Ramsey Packet Garbage Modem ... $70
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:09:07 GMT


I have bought two of Ramseys kits, the vox and the super snooper, and have been less than satisfied.
The vox kit doesnt work jwith the microphone they push so hard in the catalog, and the super snooper quite frankly is not that powerful of an amplifier and sounds like shit.
I did get the vox to trip by hooking the super snooper up jto it, the suggestion jof one of their techs( why dont you try this?, he said).
their stuff reminds me of the simple circuits in an Electronics class text book designed to demonstrate a principle, 
but have no practical use because the circuits are not sophisticated enough to be useful.

Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.packet:2237 rec.radio.amateur.misc:14250
From: markz@ssc.wa.com (Mark Zenier)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Date: 22 Aug 92 03:37:48 GMT
Organization: SSC, Inc.,  Seattle, WA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

salnick@dejavu.spk.wa.us (There is no substitute for displacement...) writes:
: In article <20489@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> tbruseha@kafka.ems.cdc.com (Tom Brusehaver) writes:
: >
: >All this frustration of long distance stuff, rules and other info got
: >me thinking.  Are there any rules about how fast someone can send CW?
: >I doubt it.  WHat if computers were sending CW (I think the rules
: >specify morse, which is fine), how fast can they listen?  On 80 meters
: >a cycle takes about 2.7e-7 seconds, if you could get computers to deal
: >with 3-5 cycles as a dit, and 9-15 cycles as a dah, you could really
: >push some bits trough.  
: 
: The limiting factor on trying to send pulses only 2-3 rf cycles long is 
: going to be the ability of the transmitter to key anywhere near this fast.

The limiting factor is that a string of dits 3 cycles long on 80 meters 
is equivalent to AM modulating a signal with a 1 MHz (or there abouts) 
square wave and will put out sidebands that won't quit.  At best,
you'd end up with a signal 2 MHz or so wide.  A bit outside the band edges.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Mark Zenier  markz@ssc.wa.com  
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.packet:2203 rec.radio.amateur.misc:14123
From: mancus@norm.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Keith Mancus)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Date: 19 Aug 1992 20:27:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: nasa-jsc

In article <1992Aug19.182827.4011@src.umd.edu>, tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:

> I think the situation right now is that 1200 is still reasonable for
> local (no hopes, or up to about 2 digi's) interactive communication.
> So, as long as the SYSOPS are running 9600 for message-passing, there
> really isn't a need to mass produce high-speed modems for everyone.
> 
> de N3HAU

  I've heard "realtime" chats across the packet network between southern
Houston and NW Arkansas.  It's slow, but usable.  You need to go through
quite a few sites! :-)
  While we're on this topic: does anyone know of a packet path that reaches
from Texas (*anywhere* in Texas) to Arkansas, without using any HF gates?
I have mapped much of that region (NE Texas) from *both* sides, hitting the
Arkansas side via HF gate, and I still haven't found a VHF crossover.

-- 
| Keith Mancus    <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                         |
|                 N5WVR                                                  |
|  "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live       |
|  in Hell." -General Sheridan                                           |
From: kriss@austin.lockheed.com (R M Kriss)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Callbook Server for Full-Service BBS calls
Date: 15 Aug 92 06:56:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: " KD5VU Dick Kriss,Austin, TX 78744"

My wish list is to find an on-line Callbook server that
has a listing of packet BBS calls by City/State. If no
server, does anyone have a listing?

Sure would be nice to be able to lookup Austin, Texas
and find N5LJF.#AUS.TX.USA.NA who runs a full-service BBS.

On more than one ocasion I have wanted to send a msg to
a ham in a city and had no idea of the BBS callsign.

Are you listening ARRL for the next Repeater Directory?

Dick, KD5VU
KD5VU @ N5LJF.#AUS.TX.USA.NA
On: 8/15/92 1:55:28 AM CST
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: awoodhull@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Long haul HF in 3rd world (Re: Packet Networks today and tomorrow)
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:00:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.071848.25569@qualcomm.com>, 
        karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:

> ... Long-haul HF is basically an
> anachronism, and except for its potential last-ditch emergency uses it
> is really a dead-end technology.
> 
This may be true in the US and other developed countries, but the
situation is not necessarily the same everywhere. In many third world
countries the infrastructure is not there to support reliable data
communications by landline, even locally. 

I particularly know the situation in Nicaragua. When I was working
there in late 1990 it was almost impossible to use a landline modem  at
1200 baud on my suburban Managua telephone line. Between the two
campuses of the Engineering University it was almost impossible to make
voice telephone calls because of the lack of trunks between two
exchanges in the same city. Landline connections between cities,
especially between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts or between the
capital and mining centers in the mountains were very difficult to
make. International e-mail was available, but exchanges with the US
took place only twice a day.

In this situation the Communications department of the Engineering
University is very interested in using ham-developed techniques and
equipment, not just to establish UHF links between locations in
Managua, but also to take advantage of reliable daytime ranges of a few
hundred miles in the 7 Mhz part of the spectrum for inter-city
communication and to use higher frequencies for international data
links to colleagues in other countries.

I suspect similar situations exist in other third world countries. 
Budget restrictions make ham-type techniques and equipment very
attractive for such applications. In Nicaragua there is also strong
support for ham radio itself; they realize that getting young people
interested in radio can only help to provide the technical skills that
further development of the economy requires.

Al Woodhull,  N1AW  
School of Natural Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA 01002
413-549-4600 ext 581 (office), 413-549-4740 (home)
awoodhull@hamp.hampshire.edu, woodhull@dawn.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: bart@netcom.com (Harry Bartholomew)
Subject: Re: ESTIMATE packet radio throughput
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 09:03:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

I suggest wsmr-simtel20.army.mil, they have a .PACKET directory, are
broadly known, and mirrored at several sites both here and in Europe.


Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.packet:2224 rec.radio.amateur.misc:14204
From: salnick@dejavu.spk.wa.us (There is no substitute for displacement...)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re:  New packeteer frustration
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:29:22 GMT
Organization: Not Organized

In article <20489@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> tbruseha@kafka.ems.cdc.com (Tom Brusehaver) writes:
>
>All this frustration of long distance stuff, rules and other info got
>me thinking.  Are there any rules about how fast someone can send CW?
>I doubt it.  WHat if computers were sending CW (I think the rules
>specify morse, which is fine), how fast can they listen?  On 80 meters
>a cycle takes about 2.7e-7 seconds, if you could get computers to deal
>with 3-5 cycles as a dit, and 9-15 cycles as a dah, you could really
>push some bits trough.  

I wrote code on an old TRS80 MIII that could easily do 40 WPM send and 
receive (and was auto speed to boot).

40 wpm x 5 characters/word = 200 characters/min
200 characters/min x 10 bits/character = 2000 bits/min (incl start/stop)
2000 bits/min / 60 = about 55 baud....

I could probably make my Amiga do 80-100 WPM, which should be 100-150 baud

The limiting factor on trying to send pulses only 2-3 rf cycles long is 
going to be the ability of the transmitter to key anywhere near this fast.

73, bob

--
RW Salnick, Spokane,WA  |  Home: salnick@dejavu.spk.wa.us
  Amiga 1000, WB 1.3    |  Work: mfgsys!salnick@kaiser.spk.wa.us
      WA9BVE            |
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.packet:2204 rec.radio.amateur.misc:14126
From: tbruseha@kafka.ems.cdc.com (Tom Brusehaver)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Summary: Morse
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:34:24 GMT
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Control Data


All this frustration of long distance stuff, rules and other info got
me thinking.  Are there any rules about how fast someone can send CW?
I doubt it.  WHat if computers were sending CW (I think the rules
specify morse, which is fine), how fast can they listen?  On 80 meters
a cycle takes about 2.7e-7 seconds, if you could get computers to deal
with 3-5 cycles as a dit, and 9-15 cycles as a dah, you could really
push some bits trough.  Assuming you had a really good error
correction code, there could easily be reliable communications.  If
the computers paid attention to error rates, the speed could vary
depending on noise, and other stuff.

Or we could plead with the ARRL to change the rules (Sorry, couldn't
resist, I thought the ARRL ran the FCC).
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Ramsey Packet Garbage Modem ... $70
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:16:04 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

btbg1194@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bradley T Banko) writes:

>(this is a flame)
>this message is a waste of bandwidth, but I just spent another 
>2 hour session getting nowhere in getting my Ramsey Baycom modem to
>key my Standard HT, and I have to drag Ramsey's name through
>the mud after they've taken $70 from me and wasted so much of my time.

>I have tried a lot of different things to get this to work, and 
>none of them have worked.  It took me about 2 hours
>to put the thing together originally, and I have spent at least 
>10-15 hours since then trying to get it to transmit on my HT.
>A damn modem circuit shouldn't cause this much trouble...

Everything I've ever bought from Ramsey has been garbage including their
counters.  I started with the counter kit.  I put the thing together and
for the first time before or since, could not make the damn thing work.
They used hinky RC coupling networks between counter stages that appeared
impossible to get working.  I sent it back and got an A/T one in return.

They used an uncompensated color burst crystal for the time base that 
was as stable as, well, a color TV :-)  I yanked that out, installed
a surplus Hewlett-packard ovenized oscillator and have been pretty 
happy with the unit.  It burns out displays and/or drivers fairly
often because both are being driven beyond ratings.

I bought the two meter amp kit.  made a fine power oscillator.  It went
back for a refund.

Then I bought the "radar gun".  This abomination uses a TVRO FET transistor
running as an oscillator at about 2 ghz as the rf source.  Stability? NOT!
The "display" uses an RC oscillator as the "timebase".  They couldn't even 
manage to put a crystal on the thing.  Got it together, all voltages 
checked out, the display lit up and flickered several digits around zero.
Clamped the thing in the vice and walked in front of it and.... It worked
for about 6 feet.  By "worked" I mean different numbers appeared on
the display than when I was not moving.  I don't think I can walk
20 mph but who knows?

IT's really too bad Ramsey is like this.  We really need a good kit source
since Heath went tits-up.  Unless you enjoy cussing and throwing things,
Ramsey is not the place.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:32:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.125034.22941@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Well 300 baud does seem slow to someone who uses the government's
>multi-million dollar internet. However, 300 baud was hot stuff on
>telephone lines 15 years ago. And unfortunately it's as fast as the
>FCC will allow on HF right now. There's no *technical* stopper preventing
>faster operation.

I guess it is a question on bandwith.  How much bandwidth does one need
to say do 4800 baud on HF?  How does that compare with SSB voice?
(not including spread-spectrum, that's cheating :) although it should be
looked into.  What are the rules for S.S. on HF right now?  Are there
commercial S.S. kits?)   

de N3HAU


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy)
Subject: Absolute beginner seems helping hand
Summary: Please hold my hand ...
Keywords: packet radio computer help
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:04:20 GMT

Is there an FAQ for this newsgroup?
If so, I probably should apologise 
for polluting your wave-band with this.

I'm interested in linking 2 computers by radio
rather than over the telephone.
I assume that is what packet radio is for.

On looking into it, it seemed that before one could do this
one had to pass some sort of amateur radio test.
Is that the case everywhere?
I went to a couple of meetings of local radio-hams,
but basically we weren't on the same wavelength.
They spent their time twiddling knobs and soldering.
And they spoke in this sort of techno-esperanto.

Now I'm not prejudiced.
Some of my best friends have soldering irons.
But I don't want to spend my twilight years
listening to white noise from South America.

So my question is, can I not just buy 2 of these radio-modems
and forget about the authorities?
And if I can,
what sort of money are we taking about?
And how far can I shout?

Any hints (or evern FAQ's) gratefully received.

-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail: tim@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
From: mleech@bnr.ca (Marcus Leech)
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Information Techology Division
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:09:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.071848.25569@qualcomm.com>, karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:
|> I see no reason to deprecate a long-haul linking technology just
|> because it's not radio. Hams ought to take a "systems integration"
|> approach to networking and be as flexible as possible in using
|> whatever is available to get the job done. Personally, I've always
|> thought that the packet radio problems most worth solving are those
|> involved in building high metropolitan area networks, where radio
|> makes the most sense in the first place. Long-haul HF is basically an
|> anachronism, and except for its potential last-ditch emergency uses it
|> is really a dead-end technology.
While I agree that solving the local connectivity problem deserves a *lot*
  of attention, and that INTERNET wormholes are becoming a way of life,
  I think that solving the longhaul problem *on amateur radio* is also
  worth persuing.  There exist a motherload of linked voice repeater networks
  today, some of them covering vast distances (IPARN, for a Canadian
  example). It is my believe that much of the site/power/antenna/political
  engineering in these networks can be leveraged for use in *real* high-speed
  digital networks that carry both voice and data.  That, I think, is a
  vision worth persuing.

-- 
Marcus Leech, 4Y11             Bell-Northern Research  |opinions expressed
mleech@bnr.ca                  P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C   |are my own, and not
ml@ve3mdl.ampr.org             Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs
From: pozar@kumr.lns.com (Tim Pozar)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: KA9q with slip and ethernet
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:40:06 GMT
Organization: Late Night Software (San Francisco)

michel@neptunus.rivm.nl (Michel van Best) writes:
>I'm using KA9q as a slip host. Now i have a connection to the ethernet.  
>Now i was wondering if its possible to route the slip packets to the ethernet. 
>Is this possible with ka9q?

    Yup, I know of several sites that do routing in and out of Internet with
slip and ethernet with the KA9Q code.

                      Tim

-- 
Internet: pozar@kumr.lns.com               FidoNet:  Tim Pozar @ 1:125/555
UUCP:     ...!uunet!kumr.lns.com!pozar
Snail:    Tim Pozar / KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108 / USA
Voice:    +1 415 788 2022