Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!CHEPPONIS@CMU-CS-C.ARPA From: CHEPPONIS@CMU-CS-C.ARPA Newsgroups: net.ham-radio.packet Subject: Pressing Issues for Packet Radio Development Message-ID: <5144@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 12:54:49 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.5144 Posted: Thu Aug 29 12:54:49 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 07:54:51 EDT Sender: bcn@mit-eddi.UUCP Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 28 From: Mike Chepponis There are many things we packeteers should be doing, such as helping new users, setting up networks, installing and maintaining BB systems, etc. But there are two areas that I think work should be done, and I'm soliciting comments on why one should be done vs the other. They are: 1) Develop a small, cheap, yet flexible TNC which does AX.25. I believe a z80 system with just 5 other chips could do it; so far, total parts/board/power costs are about $30. 2) Develop high-speed modems and implement TCP/IP. "High-speed" here means 56 kb/sec, because that is the maximum rate allowed on 220 and 440 bands; really high-speed stuff will have to be on 1240 MHz. On (1), I think that having really cheap, flexible TNCs means that many more people will get on packet, we'll have that many more BBS stations, more gateways, etc. Price is important! I envision a top speed of 9600 baud for the TNC. On (2), If somebody doesn't demo a TCP/IP system soon, it's possible the VC folks will, and that may become the de-facto standard (Yeech!). Also, I believe that slow speeds and levels 3/4 don't mix, so high-speed modems are necessary. Comments appreciated, 73, -Mike, K3MC p.s. C U at MARPC meeting September 7. -------