reasons for new Winsock TCP/IP implementation, and Winsock with TNC wit
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: reasons for new Winsock TCP/IP implementation, and Winsock with TNC wit
- From: email@example.com (Mike Bilow)
- Date: Thu, 06 Apr 95 05:13:00 -0000
- 8: 56 -0700
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Gary Crum wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
>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
GC> Here are a couple reasons to build a new Winsock
GC> implementation based on NOS:
GC> 1. Trumpet Winsock is shareware, not free. Does anyone know
GC> of an officially free Winsock?
Microsoft distributes a free Winsock stack with Windows for Workgroups that is
going to be in Windows 95 when and if it ever comes out. OS/2 includes a
TCP/IP stack and a shim to make it accessible using Winsock from within Windows
on OS/2. As with Unix, TCP/IP soon is going to be regarded as part of the
GC> 2. Such a Winsock IP implementation derived from the KA9Q
GC> NOS implementation would naturally support multiple
GC> network interfaces, and IP routing. Does anyone know of a
GC> Winsock module that does these things?
Since the OS/2 Winsock implementation is really just a shim to access the
native OS/2 TCP/IP stack, multiple interface support is no problem provided
that LAPS or some similar OS/2 facility is available.
GC> P.S. Here's a third and perhaps most important reason:
GC> Freely available source code to a Winsock-compatible
GC> TCP/IP implementation will foster interesting development.
GC> This be quite in line with a primary FCC-designated
GC> purpose of amateur radio frequency allocations --
GC> communications technology development. This in FCC Part
GC> 97.1. Go, FCC, the most improved government department
GC> this last year! -- except for frequency auctioning perhaps.
I would prefer to use Linux or FreeBSD for that kind of research.