reasons for new Winsock TCP/IP implementation, and Winsock with TNC wit
- To: email@example.com, TCP-Group@ucsd.edu
- Subject: reasons for new Winsock TCP/IP implementation, and Winsock with TNC wit
- From: Gary Crum <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 95 11:42:00 -0600
- Reply-to: Gary Crum <email@example.com>
firstname.lastname@example.org (Mike Bilow) wrote, in NOS-BBS Digest 213:
>Given this situation, the last thing we need is to reimplement a parallel
>and probably conflicting Winsock stack of our own in order to get access
Here are a couple reasons to build a new Winsock implementation based on NOS:
1. Trumpet Winsock is shareware, not free. Does anyone know of an officially
2. Such a Winsock IP implementation derived from the KA9Q NOS implementation
would naturally support multiple network interfaces, and IP routing. Does
anyone know of a Winsock module that does these things?
It seems like some people reading nos-bbs are not aware that the free
ETHRAX25 software will allow existing Winsock implementations (e.g. Trumpet)
to use COM-port-connected KISS-mode-TNC radio network interfaces (preferably
ETHRAX25 is currently at
I haven't even tried it yet.
I think I'll send this to both email@example.com and
TCP-Group@ucsd.edu, with the thinking that moving this discussion to
tcp-group is appropriate.
P.S. Here's a third and perhaps most important reason: Freely available
source code to a Winsock-compatible TCP/IP implementation will foster
interesting development. This be quite in line with a primary FCC-designated
purpose of amateur radio frequency allocations -- communications technology
development. This in FCC Part 97.1. Go, FCC, the most improved government
department this last year! -- except for frequency auctioning perhaps.