On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:45:06AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message-Id: 1462_kb2shu
From: kb2shu@kb2shu.#sca.ca.usa.noam
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've created the following init file:
[root@gateway /proc]# cat /etc/rc.d/rc.serial
SETSERIAL=/bin/setserial
echo
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:56:06AM +0800, Philip Maley wrote:
Hi Brian and others
I was running a fourport card for a while on vk6bbs but
it used only a single irq (5). My understanding is that each
fourport card has a single irq and each port has a unique
There are such
On 03-Feb-2000 Robin Gilks wrote:
Greetings all
This one has me beat for the moment.
I have set up a remote router with 3 full duplex links. These links are
implemented as one transmit and 3 receive ports. Port 'A' has the TX and
one
RX, port 'B' has an RX only and port 'C' is RX only
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 07:36:57PM -, Robert A Jenkins wrote:
For machines within the same subnet to work via an intermediate system, you
must add specific routes to the target machines with the intermediate as a
gateway. I set mine up in rc.local.
Well, they are not really on the same
On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 07:36:57PM -, Robert A Jenkins wrote:
For machines within the same subnet to work via an intermediate system, you
must add specific routes to the target machines with the intermediate as a
gateway. I set mine up in
On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 07:36:57PM -, Robert A Jenkins wrote:
For machines within the same subnet to work via an intermediate system, you
must add specific routes to the target machines with the intermediate as a
gateway. I set mine up in
Hi Dirk
I've had a look and this appears to do exactly what I *don't* want to do - ie.
restrict the destination interface based on the source interface (unless I'm
missing something here).
Does anyone have a 2.0 system they can check to see if it behaves the same as
2.2 - be nice to know if
On 04-Feb-2000 Robin Gilks wrote:
I've had a look and this appears to do exactly what I *don't* want to do -
ie.
restrict the destination interface based on the source interface (unless
I'm
missing something here).
I thought that what you essentially wanted was for a packet to go out on
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Robin Gilks wrote:
Does anyone have a 2.0 system they can check to see if it behaves the
same as 2.2 - be nice to know if this is a 2.2 problem only. If it is
its move back time
2.0 lets you route back to the interface the datagram came in. I can
verify that anytime on my
Hello,
I have used a sound card(SB32) under Linux and DOS and once
configured it works, but will it work for 9K6 quite as good as it does for
1k2?
-Original Message-
From: Sergej Pryadko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 4:58 AM
To: [EMAIL
Special thanks to Richard,
I found my problems with node-0.3.0! As I originally suspected it had to do
with the file permissions. /usr/sbin/node's permissions from the binary rpm
were set to 755. Using chmod I changed then to 4755, and the rest is
history. Symtoms were inabilty to use network
Message-Id: 1467_kb2shu
From: kb2shu@kb2shu.#sca.ca.usa.noam
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Try this insteadworks here!
${SETSERIAL} /dev/cua0 uart 16550a port 0x3f0 irq 4 ^fourport
${SERSERIAL} /dev/cua1 uart 16550a port 0x2f0 irq 3 ^fourport
Rubbish. (excuse me :) )
Well genius,
Message-Id: 1468_kb2shu
From: kb2shu@kb2shu.#sca.ca.usa.noam
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe some of this *rubbish* will help you:
# AUTOMATIC CONFIGURATION
#
# Uncomment the appropriate lines below to enable auto-configuration
# of a particular board. Or comment them out to disable them
#
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try this insteadworks here!
${SETSERIAL} /dev/cua0 uart 16550a port 0x3f0 irq 4 ^fourport
${SERSERIAL} /dev/cua1 uart 16550a port 0x2f0 irq 3 ^fourport
Rubbish. (excuse me :) )
Well genius, take a look at the SETSERIAL
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Jens David wrote:
Hmmm, are KISS TNCs still in use someplace (seriously)?
-- Jens
Yes, here. They still work fine. Maybe I'll put them to rest (perhaps use
them as dumb modems) when there exists a DAMA/Flexnet master in place of
the Linux node. That would be nice and
I should have given a few more clues as to the routing and arp entries in
place...
Here we go - note that the TX is all on ax4 but the RX ports differ:
# Robin at gb7ipd - RX is on ax4
/sbin/route add -host 44.131.161.230 mss 472 window 1728 ax4
/sbin/route add -net 44.0.0.0 netmask
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:53:25PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message-Id: 1468_kb2shu
From: kb2shu@kb2shu.#sca.ca.usa.noam
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe some of this *rubbish* will help you:
# AUTOMATIC CONFIGURATION
#
# Uncomment the appropriate lines below to enable
Gerd wrote:
Hello Jens, hello all,
[...]
Hmmm, are KISS TNCs still in use someplace (seriously)?
What other chances do you have to work with a TNC under Linux other than in
the KISS mode? I guess there are still a lot of TNC users out there (think of
You can and should use 6PACK
Hi all,
I have been testing ham radio (ax.25) drivers and server applications on
LinuxPPC from time to time as I reported before.
Yesterday, I finally switched my 24h radio/home server to LinuxPPC from
x86. All x86 boxes can be thrown away from my place (I won’t do so
though). I believe
Hi Richard
Can't help on the netstat for other than the 'box' - they are running *NOS.
Can't think how that can effect matter as gb7bw has no knowledge (and I
assume needs none) of how the packets are generated
The output of netstat at gb7bw is as follows. ax2 is a 4m interface that I'm
John Ackermann wrote:
The Linux setup is kernel 2.0.34 with ax25-module-14 and utils 2.1.42a.
For the 19.2 link, we're running a T1 timer of 2.5 seconds, and T2
timer of 200ms.
[Fri Feb 4 20:40:00 2000]
Port pi0a: AX25: N8BJQ-W8APR-3 RR C P R0
[Fri Feb 4 20:40:00 2000]
Port pi0a:
21 matches
Mail list logo
