On Sun, 9 May 1999, Thorsten Kranzkowski wrote:
> I have a fundamental question about this:
> For what purpose do we have the 'axports' file? What is the reason for
> which I have to bind a 'port' to a 'callsign' ?
>
> why don't we just use the interface name?
Because the kernel doesn't. When you want to make a connection using the
kernel AX.25, NET/ROM or ROSE layers (using the normal socket(), bind(),
listen(), accept(), connect() etc. system calls), you have to use the
interface hardware address ie. the "callsign bound to the port" to
distinguish between the ports. Only when you configure things related
directly to the interface itself (eg. the ip-address), you use the
interface name.
The whole idea of axports is to have an abstraction layer on top of these
things so that the user would have to know only the port name (which you
can BTW freely choose, unlike kernel interface names).
> I think all the information in axports is superfluous:
> name: that's what I want to get rid of
Well good for you. But I think my users much prefer using a port name like
"1" or "2m" or "9k6" over a kernel interface name like "bcfxzyq2" or
whatever they happen to be called...
> callsign: set with ifconfig (on the interface name ....:-) )
Yes you can set it with ifconfig. The idea is that you wouldn't have to.
Kissattach for example does all this for you. Also note that although you
can use ifconfig, it often isn't quite "safe". The kernel interface name
is often assigned dynamically and you can never really know for sure what
the name is. This becomes even more important in a multiport system.
> speed: set with sethdlc (also on the interface name)
> paclen: set in /proc/sys/net/ax25/bcsf0/maximum_packet_length
> ----- also the interface name
> window: set in /proc/sys/net/ax25/bcsf0/standard_window_size
Ditto.
> description: well, _very_ important when you have only one interface .....
> and if you have more than one you should know what you are
> doing.
Aren't you a bit narrow in your thinking? What about a multiport multiuser
node site? Like ours that has five radio ports, an axip port and a couple
of internal loopback ports. Sure anyone using our system knows exactly
what they are doing... NOT.
> Disadvantages of axports usage:
> - axutils stop working when you assign the same call to two or more
> interfaces
Axutils stops working only as an early warning because if you do that,
it's the _kernel_ that gets _very_ confused.
> - users get _very_ confused about when to use a 'port'-identifier(axports) and
> when the 'interface'-identifier(kernel)
Users never need to use anything but the port name. Sysops should know
what they are doing. If we are talking about an end-user that is both at
the same time, we should probably just extend the idea of axports so that
even people that use baycom, scc or soundmodem interfaces wouldn't need to
use the interface name. Suggestions welcome.
> By the way - one should drop "-i inetaddr" and "-m mtu" from nrattach and
> rsattach - that's ifconfig functionality.
Why should they be dropped? What harm is done having them there? In my
opinion we should on the contrary have options for netmask and broadcast
address too. Or preferably have all that information in the files.
> What do you think about this?
> What did I miss? Where am I wrong?
You missed only the whole idea of [ax|nr|rs]ports files...
--
--... Tomi Manninen / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / OH2BNS @ OH2RBI.FIN.EU ...--
