jb@rti-sel.UUCP (Jeff Bartlett) (11/07/85)
> In article <598@aicchi.UUCP> dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Burch) writes: > >Well, what about making the whole mess more efficient? > >To this end; > >1. Stargate; This seems like the best way for backbone sites to ship stuff. > > It has the advantage of being "free" and allowing the creation of > > "erzatz backbones" that have cable and can suck the stuff off CNN for > > their own use and for those sites that they feed. > > Sounds nice, but at present Stargate does not allow > "discussion" groups, only moderated ones, so it is not sufficient > on its own to provide for the needs of the whole net. > It also may cause problems with the single point of control/attack for news groups such as net.{religion,abortion,origin,motss,..etc}. > >2. Buy some better modems; ..... > >3. Fix NETNEWS. ..... > >4. Find "interested sites". ..... > 5. Restructure net connectivity to reduce the number and cost of the > long distance connections, replacing them with a greater number of > moderate to short distance connections. > 6. Have the recieving sites pay for the news .... Has anyone else noticed the quiet revolution that is happening in net.ham-radio.packet? Devices known as Terminal Node Controllers (TNCs) are used to implement a packet network, similar to ethernet, using the AX.25 protocol, 300 baud modems, and radio links. Recently, a journal quality article was published describing the Wiretap Algorithm a [.. class of routing algorthms that compute quasi-optimal routes for stations sharing a broadcast channel, but with some stations hidden ..] . It described work done in the Washington DC area in connecting forty-two TNC's and Digi-Repeaters. (see <257@mit-eddie.UUCP> ) Digi-Repeaters are single board computers with a two or more TNC/radios connected that echo packets along. I seem to remember reading that when the TAPR box (a TNC) was announced for release that the local telco ESS was jamed for a few days because of phone orders. Hundreds were sold. [for new.group] ... Consider Now that the backbone sites were connected with radio-links. == A lot of radio equipment can be bought for the amount of money spent per year in long-distance calls. == You say 300 baud is too slow, install N links in parallel, on different frequencies. (Wiretap describes 1200 baud using VHF) == Sun-spot activity causes un-reliable operation, revert back to long-distance dial-up temporary. [for ham-radio.packet] Recently, it was noted that a NameServer system was needed so that the ham operators could determine the latest path from point A to B. Name-space is not a problem since station ids are assigned by the FCC. This system could consist of several geographically remote unix machines that answered queries and periodically syncronized. A requester would query the nearest NameServer for a connection path. It would then use this information for the life of the connection. All live sites would periodically broadcast a beacon packet that would be overheard by the NameServer. Any bad connections would be reported to the NameServer; for which it could suggest alternate paths. (It could also investigate the reason why: did a station go off-line?) [both groups] Lets See... One group needs NameServers and the other needs lower communication costs. Let ... Some Unix sites become NameServers in exchange for using spare capacity on Digi-Repeaters and TNCs. In fact, some of sites may find local amateur radio groups willing to loan equipment to them (maybe .. local phone-lines to ham-shacks) so that their members have a NameServer in their area. A radio linked USENET would: - not be at the mercy of Ma-Bell. - be very fault-tolerance. - be highly connected. - be able to handle more traffic at almost flat cost. - etc....... --------- Let's hear it, what do the two groups have to say? --------- Ummm.. nameservd Jeff Bartlett Research Triangle Institute Research Triangle Park, NC mcnc!rti-sel!jb ^^^ "backbone" ^ 56k baud microwave P.S. Any ham operator in the triangle, please feel free to sent me mail..
david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (11/10/85)
In article <534@rti-sel.UUCP> jb@rti-sel.UUCP (Jeff Bartlett) writes: >Has anyone else noticed the quiet revolution that is happening in >net.ham-radio.packet? Yes. It's almost enough for me to want to become a ham so I can join in on the fun. (That d*mn code test bothers me). >Devices known as Terminal Node Controllers (TNCs) are used to implement >a packet network, similar to ethernet, using the AX.25 protocol, >300 baud modems, and radio links. > ... >A radio linked USENET would: > - not be at the mercy of Ma-Bell. > - be very fault-tolerance. > - be highly connected. > - be able to handle more traffic at almost flat cost. > - etc....... > Very nice possibility. But doesn't a packet radio net have the same problem that StarGate will have? i.e. respolsibility for carrying 'libelous' postings? In fact, I seem to recall a posting in ham-radio.packet saying just that. -- David Herron, cbosgd!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET. English is a second language to me -- Baby talk was my first language.