"John McHarry" wrote in message
ink.net...
Charles Brabham wrote:

http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.ph...1&pb=1#more223

Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Director: USPacket
http://www.uspacket.org



While the blog entry sounds like a call for tolerance, USPacket seems to
be
simply an advocate for AX.25 (forgive me if I err; I have been away from
the field for a while). There are reasons and places to use other
protocols, although AX.25 on VHF appears to be a good entry point for the
newcomer.

The point is to make all transport and all services available
no matter what protocol any given user chooses. That is
not the case at present, and many of the missing links are
missing intentionally. "Our protocol is better than yours,
so we refuse to allow a link to *our* network from *your*
network."

Back in the olden days I ran an Aplink station, the only one in the DC
area.
I dumped my local traffic mostly to a large local BBS that also ran HF
packet. The local head of NTS picked traffic up off both of us, and
dropped
some, I think. We just quietly pooled our resources and kept our mouths
shut to the warriors. That seemed to be winning the protocol wars for us.

Exactly. Here we have interoperability between ax.25, tcp/ip, pactor.
However the pactor systems do not allow user transport but will
handle messages to / from ax.25 and tcp/ip systems.

I'm also an engineer, and find the protocol battles, at least, useful. Any
protocol is a compromise of multiple needs. Where the channel
characteristics vary as much as they do on various amateur radio bands,
and
on individual bands from time to time, it is no wonder there is heated
debate. For some of us, that is what makes it interesting.

That's why we need to be careful to design all the layers of each
protocol in such a way that they can interoprate at layer 7, and
preferably at layers 3 and 4, so as to provide transport for the
users. Turns out it is not all that hard to do ;-)

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net