On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Mike Bilow wrote:
> Second, node functionality stagnated. The basic BBS model for packet activity
> was reasonable in the days when the idea was to share a Xerox 820 CP/M
> computer, and it was a requirement that ordinary users be able to work from
> dumb terminals rather than computers. Even very substantial technical
> achievements, such as the F6FBB software, are coerced into this model. The
> worst example is the DX Cluster network, which was without question the most
> inefficient possible application for the BBS model. I don't mean to criticize
> the demand for DX Cluster functionality, but that demand should have been
> satisfied with a more intelligent and efficient architecture making use of both
> simple techniques that have been known for decades, such as NAK-only datagram
> protocols, and newer developmental techniques, such as multicasting.
The problem I see is that most packet users are stuck to see that things
are to be made conforming this model. In fact more modern designs like
SuperVozely and Flexnet lack the functionality for broadcast/multicast
relaying. This make hard to make working IP networks.
I think that if SV and flexnet nodes could relay broadcast frames and
maybe make a route discovery in a manner like token ring (ie. source
rounting and learning paths) you could make working IP networks without
breaking other uses.
> Fourth, the physical layer stagnated. The original packet protocols were
> chosen for no better reason than that someone got a good deal on a bunch of
> surplus Bell 202 modems. As a result, we ended up stuck with a physical layer
Agreed. Anyway as in DSY design is easy to add a byte oriented hardware
FEC mechanism.
But for the newbie start building a 23 cm 38k4 radio is a bit difficult
(ok for me too, but maybe I could ask help from some microwavers).
Mike
