hugh@BRL.ARPA (06/05/87)
Hi, I am trying to use cu for telecommunications with an Intel 310 running xenix 3.0. Whenever I try to make a long distance call through my FTS line, the process times out, "DN timeout". What does this mean? Is there a way that I can change the timeout setting to allow a longer time to make the connection? Thanks, hugh
mikep@ism780c.UUCP (06/07/87)
In article <7708@brl-adm.ARPA> hugh@BRL.ARPA (USAFAS | Howard) writes: >Hi, > > I am trying to use cu for telecommunications with an Intel 310 >running xenix 3.0. Whenever I try to make a long distance call through >my FTS line, the process times out, "DN timeout". What does this mean? >Is there a way that I can change the timeout setting to allow a longer >time to make the connection? > > > Thanks, > > hugh Have you tried using "cu" directly? In other words, not autodialing. I used to work in Ft. Huachuca, AZ. and I know how loooonnnggg it can take to connect with FTS lines. Try this command (assuming your modem port is /dev/ttyc0): $ cu -l/dev/ttyc0 -s1200 dir Notice the keyword DIR. When your connected to the modem, set the timeout on the modem by using appropriate modem commands (I don't recall what they are for a Hayes), but it can be done. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The company and all my associates and friends and ESPECIALLY the government put me up to say all this useless trash. |=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=| MikeP sdcrdcf\ "When we want too much attention >-- ism780c!mikep Not content to being cool. seismo/ We must throw ourselves wide open Start acting like a fool."
jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) (06/07/87)
In article <7708@brl-adm.ARPA>, hugh@BRL.ARPA (USAFAS | Howard) writes: > I am trying to use cu for telecommunications with an Intel 310 > running xenix 3.0. Whenever I try to make a long distance call through > my FTS line, the process times out, "DN timeout". What does this mean? > Is there a way that I can change the timeout setting to allow a longer > time to make the connection? Sorry for the delay in replying. I have been trying to send you e-mail, but have been unsuccessful. I really don't know what an FTS line is, but I have a few things you can try. 1) I assume that you are doing the dialing from the L.sys file. In this file, locate the send/expect strings where the number is dialed. Insert "\r\d\c" immediately after the dial string. This is the string that starts out with ATDT if you have a Hayes compatible dialer. The \r means to send a carriage return. The \d indicates to delay here. The \c says not to send a carriage return at the end of the string (we already sent one). If needed, add more \d's. Each causes a two second delay. The example send field would be: ATDT12125551212\r\d\c. This should fix the problem. 2) You might try putting a "#" after the number that you are dialing, if it is sent via touch tone. This indicates that you have no more digits to send to the CO (central office). It is actually sent via two tones, just like the digits, and it prevents the CO from using timing to determine if you are done sending. It also saves you time. I use it all the time even when manually dialing. It is especially useful on international calls, where the local phone company doesn't know how many digits to expect. An example of this would be: ATDT12125551212#\r\d\c. I have a question for you. Is 3.0 the latest version of Xenix running on a 310? I have the task of helping my agent get his 310 system running and he is running Xenix v1.0! It is really a pain. Does 3.0 have a getty? Is there a call to IOCTL(2) in section 2 of the manual? I am trying to have him use the same modem for originating and terminating calls. I have a program here to do it, but it relies on running under System V (I think). I am having him order the upgrade, but I don't know if it will help. Maybe you can make use of this program, when I get it working. Let me know. -- Jack Bonn, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT 06612 seismo!uunet!swlabs!jack
michael@macom1.UUCP (06/08/87)
in article <237@swlabs.UUCP>, jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) says: > > I have a question for you. Is 3.0 the latest version of Xenix running on > a 310? I have the task of helping my agent get his 310 system running > and he is running Xenix v1.0! It is really a pain. Does 3.0 have a getty? > Is there a call to IOCTL(2) in section 2 of the manual? I am trying to have > him use the same modem for originating and terminating calls. I have a > program here to do it, but it relies on running under System V (I think). > I am having him order the upgrade, but I don't know if it will help. The latest version is Xenix 3.4, Intel frees up quite a bit of kernal space in this one, plus fixes some bugs in cu, and several device driver rewrites. For the military users of the 310, there is a considerable wait to upgrade to the new 3.4, partly because of Intel, but the biggest hitch was getting the new release approved by the systems people at Ft Huachuka Az. I belive the priorities on upgrade go like this: Sites with level A maint. contract and have Open-net " " without network. System purchased without the update included, and are in the 90 day preiod. Then comes about everyone else that may want it. For people that like to make as much use of the tunable params as possible, I would highly recomend 3.4, Intel did a great job of cleaning up the kernal. Intel is shipping 3.4 with all the new systems, but I don't know the date this was initiated. john m mullins disclaimer: This guy doesn't know a micro-chip from a micro organism!
mikep@ism780c.UUCP (06/10/87)
In article <205@macom1.UUCP> michael@macom1.UUCP (Michael Mullins) writes: >The latest version is Xenix 3.4, Intel frees up quite a bit of kernal space >in this one, plus fixes some bugs in cu, and several device driver rewrites. >For the military users of the 310, there is a considerable wait to upgrade to >the new 3.4, partly because of Intel, but the biggest hitch was getting the new >release approved by the systems people at Ft Huachuka Az. ^^^^^^=^ <- spelling > >I belive the priorities on upgrade go like this: > Sites with level A maint. contract and have Open-net > " " without network. > System purchased without the update included, and are in the 90 day preiod. > Then comes about everyone else that may want it. From what I remember, the priorities are all wrong. When I used to work at Ft. Huachuca (for MITRE Corp., then Intel Corp.) the Executive Software People (who are the gov. part taking care of the 310's) wanted to install isolated sites first. Then, get on to the big neworks. Also, there was more to getting the new release approaved. For example, there were numerous modifications that had to be made to iDIS, etc. to make it suitable to military users. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The company and all my associates and friends and ESPECIALLY the government put me up to say all this useless trash. |=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=| MikeP sdcrdcf!\ "Some of my best friends are Bigots..." >-- ism780c!mikep seismo!/
michael@macom1.UUCP (06/11/87)
in article <6565@ism780c.UUCP>, mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) says: > From what I remember, the priorities are all wrong. When I used to > work at Ft. Huachuca (for MITRE Corp., then Intel Corp.) the > Executive Software People (who are the gov. part taking care of the 310's) > wanted to install isolated sites first. Then, get on to the big > neworks. Also, there was more to getting the new release approaved. For > example, there were numerous modifications that had to be made to > iDIS, etc. to make it suitable to military users. Ok Mike, I didn't get my version of 3.4 through the accepted chain of distribution in the military. I refused to used the iDIS system, for reasons that I will go into if anyone is interested. In light of that, I did not have to wait for the aspects of iDIS to be worked out. One of my biggest gripes about the whole contract the military put together was the fact that the poeple in Arizona, got all the equipment. Last count, from what I heard, Greely Hall had in excess of 100 systems on the net, yes I know, they were not ALL 310 systems, but I believe it demonstrates the Gross waste of resources at the top of the chain. Just to throw a little rap in, I loved the system. With the removal of some excess device drivers from the kernal, and finding the correct tune. parm. combination, that little 286 system performed quite with 12 users, all running Lyrix and Informix... gotta go, system comming down! john
tslee@oracle.uucp (Terry S. Lee) (10/25/90)
Does anyone in netland know how to setup cu to go over X.25? I have uucp setup already, but that's in the sys file, and cu (apparently) uses the devices file. The specific platform is a Sequent S27 running Dynix. Thanks Terry Lee tslee@oracle.com