Also do we send any encrypted stuff over this? What if something commercial gets routed through say CHIMPYMAIL.COM - will this be a problem or is it a "problem" in theory only?
I thought encryption and commercial messages were strictly verboten on HAM stuff.
Sampsa
On 31 Oct 2012, at 21:33, Fred wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Dave McGuire wrote:
We could probably do that...encapsulate DECnet packets in AX.25..
I was thinking about that (also in regard's to Steve's comment about him having an IP on the 44. amateur reserved net). I experimented with this years ago, but there was no one around my area to test with.
Wouldn't latency be an issue?
Fred
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Dave McGuire wrote:
We could probably do that...encapsulate DECnet packets in AX.25..
I was thinking about that (also in regard's to Steve's comment about him having an IP on the 44. amateur reserved net). I experimented with this years ago, but there was no one around my area to test with.
Wouldn't latency be an issue?
Fred
Let's hijack one - I thought the Iranians managed to get one up there, don't think anyone would particularly give us trouble in the West if we took it over..
Sampsa
On 31 Oct 2012, at 21:05, Dave McGuire wrote:
Probably not. I dunno about you, but I'm not sitting on a wad of
cash. :-(
-Dave
On 10/31/2012 03:04 PM, Sampsa Laine wrote:
But the network of geostationary satellites idea is not gonna fly, is it?
Sampsa
On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:58, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/31/2012 08:16 AM, Joe Ferraro wrote:
If we only had the HF Radio DECnet link figured out... ;)
We could probably do that...encapsulate DECnet packets in AX.25..
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Probably not. I dunno about you, but I'm not sitting on a wad of
cash. :-(
-Dave
On 10/31/2012 03:04 PM, Sampsa Laine wrote:
But the network of geostationary satellites idea is not gonna fly, is it?
Sampsa
On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:58, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/31/2012 08:16 AM, Joe Ferraro wrote:
If we only had the HF Radio DECnet link figured out... ;)
We could probably do that...encapsulate DECnet packets in AX.25..
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
But the network of geostationary satellites idea is not gonna fly, is it?
Sampsa
On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:58, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/31/2012 08:16 AM, Joe Ferraro wrote:
If we only had the HF Radio DECnet link figured out... ;)
We could probably do that...encapsulate DECnet packets in AX.25..
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 10/31/2012 08:16 AM, Joe Ferraro wrote:
If we only had the HF Radio DECnet link figured out... ;)
We could probably do that...encapsulate DECnet packets in AX.25..
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On Oct 31, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/31/2012 01:58 PM, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
FWIW, for those who like Forth, there's a Forth implementation
available as a run-time system on RSTS/E. It's part of the
unsupported stuff on V10.1 (and possibly somewhat earlier, maybe as
early as V9.0, I forgot). I did the port; I used it among other
things for implementing an interactive crash dump analyzer *very*
loosely modeled on VMS "SDA".
I spent some time with that RTS just a few days ago! I didn't know
you did that port. Very nice! I just looked at the source, and there's
your name right at the top. :-)
I came to love Forth many years after I got out of RSTS/E. Having
gotten back into it a couple of years ago, and finding a Forth system
for it, was a really cool feeling. Life is good. :)
Is there a way to do FIP calls from that Forth implementation?
Definitely. In the unsupported directory there should be odt.fth, which should show that. There is also sda.fth, but that's a lot bigger and more complex, partly because it completely redefines the Forth guts to be 32-bit instead of 16-bit...
paul
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:06:51 +0000, you wrote:
It shouldn't be a big delay: connecting to a non-existent object generates an
explicit reject that comes back right away. There isn't any timeout involved,
or "no answer".
The delay is about three to four seconds long, but maybe it depends on the
speed of the (emulated) RSTS host too. I do know that there is not such a
thing as a "no answer"; it was just an oversimplification of what a casual
user could think upon seeing an error instead of a login prompt. :)
G.
On 10/31/2012 01:58 PM, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
FWIW, for those who like Forth, there's a Forth implementation
available as a run-time system on RSTS/E. It's part of the
unsupported stuff on V10.1 (and possibly somewhat earlier, maybe as
early as V9.0, I forgot). I did the port; I used it among other
things for implementing an interactive crash dump analyzer *very*
loosely modeled on VMS "SDA".
I spent some time with that RTS just a few days ago! I didn't know
you did that port. Very nice! I just looked at the source, and there's
your name right at the top. :-)
I came to love Forth many years after I got out of RSTS/E. Having
gotten back into it a couple of years ago, and finding a Forth system
for it, was a really cool feeling. Life is good. :)
Is there a way to do FIP calls from that Forth implementation?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
