Quoting Barton C Massey <b...@cs.pdx.edu>:

In message <498643ed.7060...@psas.pdx.edu> you wrote:
...has lots of nice features like data identified packets
instead of node addresses, etc.


The J1939 version of CAN (just one example) uses a combination of node and data identified packets. Both are possible, either are trivial.

It seemed to me like this particular feature was a pain when
we tried this before?  I thought we ended up kludging a node
addressing scheme that borrowed bits that may or may not
have belonged to us in order to get enough node addresses,
and then had trouble getting things to work.  Of course,
it's likely I'm mistaken.

If you can't get enough unique identifiers with 11 or 29 bits, you're doing something wrong.

At any rate, what's wrong with node addresses?  Software boy
here really likes sending data to specific nodes, and is
missing why he should fail to like it.

By identifying data by the message contents, everyone on the bus can listen in and receive the information. Node to node is inefficient and wastes bandwidth.





_______________________________________________
psas-avionics mailing list
psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu
http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics

Reply via email to