www.a00.de > tcpgroup > 1991 > msg00071
 

TCP-group 1991


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

MAC sublayer protocol



In <9101151744.AA06967@hpnmdlc1.hp.com> Glenn Elmore <glenne@hpnmdlc1.hp.com> wr
ites:
>   fred k1io writes in response to Steve Johnson:
>>      [good stuff deleted for brevity]
>     If the repeater is located such that it *only* radiates to<->from the
>   same set of U users which would otherwise be trying to CSMA it alone I
>   agree.  BUT, very often the repeater is located at a high level site.
>   This means that it not only gobbles the spectrum from a much larger area
>   but also is likely to increase the number of users.  The result can be
>   that 10*U(or whatever) users now vie for the same channel and we are

Some trivial solutions:

1) put the repeater lower (saves $ too)
2) run lower power and/or more squelch (another $ saver)
3) okay, put up ten times as many repeaters.  Why assume
   a scarcity when none need exist ?

and a slightly less trivial solution

4) The above discussion assumes a "no-brains" full duplex repeater.
Ok, maybe it's doing some regeneration.  Now let's assume a few more
smarts:

    When the repeater decides that a packet might be arriving, it
    starts sending SYNC chars on the Tx side BUT it starts assembling
    the incoming packet at least until it has the calling station id -
    WITHOUT simultaneously retransmitting the incoming octets.  Then
    it looks up the calling station's id, and start repeating the
    packet if the call is on the approved list.  Otherwise, it fakes a
    collision on the output side.

The induced latency is only the time between the start of the SYNCs
and the end of the calling station id, which in a standard AX.25
packet is very near the head of the packet.  A little FIFO is all
that's logically needed.  If the packets are of a good size (a
given, since otherwise all the other latencies are going to kill us)
this won't hurt much, and if not - well, it's *still* better than the
alternative :-).

Mind you, I find the concept of a closed repeater to be one of the most
distasteful ideas in hamdom.  If the ham population is dense enough
(in the *spatial* sense of the word) to require this sort of
technique, I suppose keeping track of who can use the repeater would
be a bearable administrative overhead (sigh).  If the other sense of
the word applies, ghods help us.





Document URL : http://www.a00.de/tcpgroup/1991/msg00071.php
Ralf D. Kloth, Ludwigsburg, DE (QRQ.software). < hostmaster at a00.de > [don't send spam]
Created 2004-12-21. Last modified 2004-12-21. Your visit 2020-10-20 11:55.43. Page created in 0.0564 sec.
 
[Go to the top of this page]   [... to the index page]