On 8 Nov 99 at 10:53, ritz wrote:
> So my understanding of AX.25 is as follows: The Linux Kernel gets
> a network packet all ready to go, but instead of launching it
> through it's network device (eth0 for example), using IP
> Masquerading
It is not mandatory to use masquerading at all. It may be useful in
some cases, period.
> and hard routing commands, I can get it to route the information
> through the serial port. At which time the kiss protocol is
> utilized as a driver so the kernel can send and receive packets
> through the serial port packet device. And isn't it true that the
> actual protocol of the packets exchanged is AX.25?
Yes, on the radio channel it is AX.25, a level 2 protocol. On the
computer - TNC interface, it may be KISS, as you have said before,
or host, or 6pack, or whatever protocol is devised for the purpose.
But the radio must transmit and receive AX.25, as it is legally
required for radio amateurs, set by the FCC in the USA and a defacto
standard created by the massive distribution of such devices all over
the world. It is even used commercially.
> The reason I need to know is because I would like this group of
> students to write a driver for windows 95/98 (maybe NT) to allow
> the same sort of device interaction. Naturally I'm looking for
> "double click the setup.exe" with minimal instructions. I'm a
> UNIX Admin / programmer by trade, but I also see the value in
> making this hobby easier for others, thereby growing the hobby.
> In my mind I envision Windows 95, and Linux chatting happily
> along using the same protocol Linux is currently using for AX.25.
And why not use XWindows (X11), which is also a GUI ? If point and
click is what is on your mind, it might be as appropiate.
I am running a Linux FBB BBS, and it is a BBS alike to the users like
it could be either under MSDOS (I ran FBB under MSDOS for years, with
DesqView as multitasker) or Windows. The OS doesn't make a bit of
difference to the users other than the Linux FBB BBS is more stable
than the WinFBB....not a fault of F6FBB, by the way. In fact, many
users did not notice themselves the change of OS, they just thought
it was a faster computer.
> They also plan on building a radio card for a PC also. While I
> think this is over the scope of the class, and that it may be too
> expensive to actually distribute, the professor strongly disagrees
> with me, and insists that they can make it work. They feel they
> can manufacture enough to make them reasonably priced, but he also
> is willing to sell them in "kit" form, to be built by the end user.
> The kit's might cost $75.00. The goal of the group is to start at
> 9.6Kb, and then move up to 19.2. I should mention they want to use
> the 222MHz band. And then if all goes well, they would move right
> up to 56Kb.
In Region 2, it might be either 222-225 MHz, or 430-450 MHz to be
of worldwide usefulness.
> I'm excited about the potential of this project, but I lack the
> understanding of the actual protocol, and of high-speed packet in
> general. I would greatly appreciate a critique of the proposed
> plan.
Take a look at http://www.tapr.org, http://www.hamradio.si, or
http://www.csel.com/hsg
> Specific Questions
> 1) What is the actual protocol used in the packets via the radio link?
For radio amateurs, AX25. Commercial applications might use other
protocols.
> 2) Has anyone already created a driver for windows for this protocol?
Yes, it has been done.
> 3) Is it possible (with a driver, some convoluted way) to get
> windows to be compatible with the Linux AX.25 protocol? Has it
> been done before? Website?
AX.25 must be the same no matter how it is created. It is a standard.
Look at the TAPR Website for a copy of the standard.
Linux is the ONLY operating system that incorporates AX.25 support in
its kernel, as far as I know. Windows does not, you must add it with
software.
> 5) What piece of hardware (within the scope of this project) do you think
> the "global" amateur radio community would benefit most from?
A low power data transceiver in a card would be something
interesting. I mean low power in the true QRP sense of less than 5
watts, and maybe just one watt or two could be enough, as power is to
be drained from the motherboard slots. Higher power should use an
external amplifier.
73 de Jose, CO2JA
---
Ing. Jose A. Amador | Telef : (537) 20-7814
Depto. de Telecomunicaciones | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ISPJAE |
La Habana, CUBA |
