FlexNet Info for U.S. Hams

PC FlexNet Info for US Hams
by Charles Brabham N5PVL

FlexNet is an amateur packet radio networking system, just like NetRom, ROSE, TexNet, FPAC, etc.. The following statement, quoted from the FlexNet Internet home page, best describes the essential difference between FlexNet and these other amateur packet radio networking packages...

" It's like re-inventing the wheel, and getting it right this time. "

This is a bold statement for FlexNet's authors to make, but it is also quite true. FlexNet is a completely new approach to packet networking, and its special features directly address many of the problems that have frustrated packet operators as well as networkers in the US for some time.

TNC Parameters

Perfectly set TNC parameters are essentially a compromise, which the operator hopes will be appropriate, more often than not, as packet link conditions vary. Many hams try to stick with the default parameters as much as they can, while others experiment endlessly. Very few hams claim to understand how to set TNC parameters, and those who do tend to argue with each other about them.

Despite our best efforts, TNC parameter settings which are set for crowded or poor conditions will be grossly inefficient when the link is clear and open, and TNC settings for good conditions will completely tie things up when link quality goes down. So, even when everything is set "right", it's really only right a small part of the time.

This is due to the fact that TNC parameter settings are not easily adustable, and must be "set" in a value calculated to perform best under average operating conditions. These compromise settings provide low performance in all but the estmated conditions they are set for, and even then suffer from compromise in settings such as PACLEN.

The static TNC parameter settings we have become accustomed to in the US have led to compromised, needlessly poor performance within our networks, along with a lot of confusion and controversy... It's been a complicated mess. Many a packet operator has gotten hot under the collar, from time to time, at the way "so and so" sets his TNC parameters, especially if "so and so" operates a node.

FlexNet handles this problem through the use of adaptive, dynamic TNC parameter settings. What this means is that the FlexNet software itself determines how the TNC's parameters should be set, constantly adapting them to changing band conditions, levels of congestion, and timing factors for each individual connection. The operator has to set the TXDELAY parameter to suit his equipment, but FlexNet then handles FRACK, PACLEN, MAXFRAME, RESPTIME, PPERSIST, and so on.

This feature eliminates many arguments and greatly simplifies the setup of FlexNet packet radio stations, but it's main value lies in the drastically increased efficiency it offers over static link parameter settings found in TNC firmware and in the old-style networking packages currently used in the US.

When packet link conditions deteriorate, FlexNet backs off on the TNC parameters until it eliminates excessive resends and retries. - When conditions improve, FlexNet "opens up like a hose", utilizing much more agressive parameter settings than a sensible set of static TNC parameters could ever utilize. The result is better throughput of data under all conditions, at all times.

This system has a lot to offer. In places where FlexNet has become established, throughput and channel capacity have risen dramatically. Everything simply works better, and faster, even if you are still using the same old radios and TNC's, going at the same old baud rate. This is because FlexNet squeezes every last bit of use it can out of the radio link, responding and adjusting itself to ever changing conditions and loads and intelligently managing it's traffic with other stations.

Hidden Transmitter Syndrome ( HTS )

HTS is a major problem in the US packet network. Using our present, old-style setup, all stations in a given local network MUST be able to hear each other. If they don't, stations that cannot hear each other will tend to transmit at the same time, drowning each other out and tying up the frequency to no purpose.
HTS slows EVERYONE down, and many Hams who own Handy-Talkies or low-powered kit radios are told that they MUST have 25-50 watts and a HIGH vertical antenna in order to responsibly "play" packet radio. They get turned away, sometimes quite rudely, because their low-powered radios are "hidden transmitters" and produce HTS.

Various fixes for HTS have been tried, but even the best (digital repeaters) are limited by the timing characteristics of the SLOWEST radio on the channel. The result is serious problems with collisions and unnecessary retries which get rapidly worse under poor or crowded conditions. This problem has been at the root of many disagreements, and is widely recognised as the single most serious drawback experienced by packet users in the US.

FlexNet nodes eliminate HTS with a polling system that makes all stations connected to the node, be they weak or strong, wait their turn and only transmit to the node when they are polled. This DAMA access system is optional, and requires that users utilize DAMA capable drivers for their term programs, ( Like FlexNet, for example ) in order to enjoy its benefit.
With its use, there is still some danger of collisions during the initial connection to the node but little or none thereafter, no matter how many stations are connected and whether they can hear each other or not. FlexNet as a driver for a home station operates as a DAMA "slave".. FlexNet as a node can be a DAMA "Slave" or "master", with the option being set up on a port-by-port basis by the node sysop, as needed.

One benefit resulting from the use of DAMA is seldom mentioned; As DAMA serves to eliminate HTS, it also eliminates traditional problems associated with operating packet at low power, such as with a Handy-Talkie. Low power packet stations no longer generate HTS in a DAMA environment and in fact are preferred over stations that run more power than they need to. In this way, DAMA returns us to the sound practice of using the minimum amount of power needed for a connection, and no longer having to worry about whether every other station in the LAN can hear you or not. - It's no longer important that they be able to do so.

Routing

Of the various routing systems commonly used by hams in the US, the totally static system used by Amateur TCP/IP is the least sophisticated, and the most advanced is the automatic routing system built into NetRom/TheNet/BPQ. Even this system suffers from "static parameter syndrome" though, providing limited (set) responses to infrequent updates which vary wildly in "quality", depending on which neighbors the network info comes from, and propagation conditions.
NetRom nodes in my area, for example, regularly show other NetRoms from over 500 miles away on their NODES lists.. You can't connect to those nodes, of course, but they still get listed because their ID's were "heard" during the course of intermittent peaks in propagation on 2 meters.

FlexNet handles this problem by regularly polling other nodes and routes within the (FlexNet) network, providing each node with a real-time, dynamic picture of which routes are currently fastest to any given destination within the network. As conditions of propagation or utilization change on any given link, so does its routing status. Connects through a dozen or more nodes are regularly and reliably done on the existing European FlexNetwork, due to the advanced routing, and the full-duplex node-node links they use there.

If a route degrades due to heavy loading or equipment problems, the "slow spot" is automagically "routed around" by FlexNet so that the traffic continues to flow despite outages and slowdowns that occur within the network. This feature gives us a very good reason to return to the sound principle of adding redundant, secondary routes to our packet networks. By doing so, we can more easily maintain and upgrade the equipment without service outages. When a node goes off the air, less than five minutes later it's traffic is already being routed around the downed node, with it's nieghbors taking up the load. When it comes back, less than five minutes later it is recognised and being used again by the network.

FlexNet actually uses several routing systems, which are utilized in turn to resolve routing. For a better description, see the Official FlexNet Introduction written by DK7WJ and N2IRZ, which describes the routing hierarchy in detail.

Reality Check

Above I have lightly covered what I understand to be the major features of FlexNet, with emphasis on common problems in the US packet net which FlexNet directly addresses.

Still, there are many considerations besides "features", when evaluating potential software for packet networking. Here's a few short statements which should clear up many questions.

Though development of FlexNet continues, the software is much more reliable and stable than usual for such software. It's not bug-prone. I've been running it several years now, and still haven't managed to "crash" it.

The PC version of FlexNet can be inexpensively set up, using:

TNC2 (clone) <-- Requires use of "6-pack" EPROM image, allowing up to eight TNC's on one Com port. No KISS driver is available, as KISS cannot provide the information FlexNet uses to control the link.

Tigertronics BayPak modems ( 1.2 or 9.6 kb ) <-- US distributors for BayCom
These modems are inexpensive and reliable.

Soundblaster <-- 1.2, 4.8 or 9.6 kb, but requires LOTS of CPU, memory, ect.
Uses a Com port, game port, parallel port, or a VOX circuit to key the radio's PTT.
A good cheap way to experiment, or to get a packet station started on a budget.

DRSI Card <-- The DRSI PCPA cards can be used as well as several other HDLC cards popular in Europe.

...And many others too numerous to list here, including high speed stuff, ethernet drivers, IP, ect.

If you're only running a few ports and have plenty of RAM and CPU, you can shoe-horn PC FlexNet and a BBS or Cluster into the same machine. Faster computers with more RAM will handle more, of course.

The Win95 version of PC-FlexNet allows use of Win95 applications ( such as Netscape, ect ) and Win95 tcpip server software with Amateur TCP/IP or AX25. This is something else which should have been done long ago, and is just as revolutionary as FlexNet's adaptive parameter settings, in it's own way.

Where/How to get FlexNet

If you want to use FlexNet for a personal station, to run the Win95 version, or to use FlexNet as a driver for a BBS or Cluster, just download the latest files from the FlexNet web site. Those files will do everything except operate FlexNet as a node.

http://www.afthd.tu-darmstadt.de/~flexnet/

The authors of FlexNet wish to be the sole distributors of the node option, and require those who are interested in operating a FlexNet node to register with them by way of an E-mail request. Also, the latest version of PC/FlexNet to have the node option is v 3.3g (DOS) . The later versions, and Win95 version do not as of this writing have node support.

Once you have made your E-mail request, the optional node software program is returned to you via E-mail as a message attachment. The drivers and application software is freely distributed at the web site, as are the docs for those who want to use FlexNet to drive a terminal program, Cluster, or BBS.

It's all free.

Good luck!        73 DE Charles, N5PVL

 

Gee, I've got a spare rig, P90, and MFJ-1278 (guess I could use my MFJ-1270C...) I could use...

Unfortunately, it seems by the docs, I have to have an eprom burned and installed in my TNC. Suggested EPROMS? Burners? Sources for kind folks to burn an EPROM I send them? All docs in English?. BTW, the link in the first reply doens't work.

Look like I'm going to have to work at this one!

73,
Jim N8AVX

 

More info on my web site, links, setup examples, etc..

Charles, N5PVL

 

http://www.northeastflexnet.org/

Works for me. Lots of good info here.

Charles, N5PVL

 

You don't necessarily need a TNC anymore, here is some info on Muliplatform Soundcard Packet Radio Modem Driver Software support.

 

No doubt about it, Thomas Sailer has written some of the best driver software available for packet operators.

Having said that, I'll also mention that I have not had any luck with the Flex32 soundmodem driver, on my machine.

I have heard happy reports from other Hams who had it jump right up and work for them, and I have also heard from others who had the same problem I have encountered.

The PTT doesn't work for me.

The PTT works great on that machine with EchoStation and Digipan, so it's not the interface.

When I run Flex32 with the bundled 6-pack driver and a TNC2 (W/6-pack EPROM), it works fine.

I use the Paxon term program with Flex32, by the way. But that's just me.

Charles, N5PVL

 

Yup, the link works now... Must not have been holding my toes right...

73,
Jim N8AVX

 

When you had trouble with the link, I checked it, and it didn't work for me either. - Then I "hovered" my cursor over the link, and saw that it was a re-direct of some sort.

So, I supplied the regular link I've used for years.

Then, later on, the original one started working! That's the way things like that seem to go, a lot of times. By the time you fix it, it's working anyway.

I did some research on my problem with the PTT when using Flex32 and the SoundModem driver. I discovered that it worked for some people, but not for others. Nobody appears to have a clear idea why.

Also, I discovered that the fix for it is to stop using the Com port to send the PTT signal, and use the VOX PTT circuit displayed on the FlexNet website instead.

http://www.afthd.tu-darmstadt.de/~flexnet/dg1scr/ptt.html#vox

I think I'll order the parts a put a couple of them together.

My theory on doubling up on the parts order is that if I fry something, I get a second chance. If I don't fry anything, then I have a spare interface to give away.

Charles, N5PVL

 

This is prehistoric, old and irrelevant material.

In the first place, not many own Windows95 and making flexnet, Windows95/98, a soundcard and the packet driver work in harmony, is a task of note.  For the purpose of this, we will omit to mention the effort to configure other AX.25 software reliant on flexnet.

Maybe flexnet did do miracles for the wheel, but the wheel is now flat and flexnet are behind in the times.  Very behind.

Considering that the AGW Packet Engine came from the back of the pack, I would think flexnet leaves very little to be desired.

The AGW Packet Engine (by SV2AGW) is compatible with all operating systems, uses the soundcard WITHOUT the need to stuff around with your system profile and has MORE software and network support than the ancient flexnet you so proudly describe.

Best of all, it's free.

So why then, do I wish to praise flexnet?  I dont.

de Steve, VK2ISP

 

Steve, VK2ISP says:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
So why then, do I wish to praise flexnet?  I dont.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Whatever.

Can you tell me, by the way,  where the AGW Packet Engine network is? How many hundred square miles it covers?

I have not heard of AGW being used for anything except home stations. I have never heard of any case of it being used to build network... Have you?

My article describes the advantages of using FlexNet to either build network, or run a home station. It is good for either one.

The AGW Packet Engine software is intended for home use, and does not "compete" with FlexNet, because the two systems are intended to accomplish different things.

The FlexNet compatability in AGW Packet Engine software is a good feature. The author was very wise to use the API that the Darmstadt group provides to interested programmers who can demonstrate thier ability. It appears the author of AGW Packet Engine did not share your opinon of FlexNet. Imitation is, after all, the most sincere form of flattery.

The AGW stuff is good software. The evaluation version of AGW is free, but you must pay for the full-boat version. SV2AGW worked hard to write his software, and he did it largely on his own. There is nothing wrong with him charging the small amount he does.

As always, FlexNet is free to all Amateur Radio operators.

Charles, N5PVL

 

Have you noticed the strange phenomena, peculiar to Amateur Packet Radio, where some people appear to feel threatened at the idea of other Hams using other equipment, other software?

It doesn't really matter what you try to discuss or most especially promote. There will always be a few "ya-hoos" out there who get thier sicko jollies by trying to lessen the enjoyment that other Hams get from the hobby.

You can tell a "ya-hoo", because they will always be disparaging, rude, negative and nasty. They often have no clear idea of what they are talking about, and will make up bogus "facts" to fill the gaps. How DARE another Ham do something different from what they have chosen to do?

SV2AGW would be the very last person to advocate such behavior among Hams. Besides being a true Ham, he is a gentleman.

He is most certainly not a TROLL, and would not appreciate that kind of behavior being associated with his software.

Should I send him a copy of VK2ISP's post, ask how he feels about it, and post his answer here? He is generally pretty good about answering his E-mail.

( This is a trick question... I already know what he will say. )

Charles, N5PVL

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5pvl @ May 28 2002,16:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can tell a "ya-hoo", because they will always be disparaging, rude, negative and nasty. They often have no clear idea of what they are talking about, and will make up bogus "facts" to fill the gaps. How DARE another Ham do something different from what they have chosen to do?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A "Ya-hoo" (AKA "Goob") is all a matter of perspective. I noticed that you have belittled TCP/IP on in a few posts. Calling it "Amateur TCP/IP" (Is there an RFC for that?) and stating falsely that you can only have static routing with it (BGP or OSPF anyone?) made you seem like a "Ya-hoo".

The packet community has more computer geeks than radio nerds. Real computer geeks have a passion about having systems that are ideal (for them) rather than "What works ok". Heck, look at VI vs EMACS, GNOME vs KDE, FreeBSD vs Linux. Now those are some knockdown, dragout, H-Bomb dropping flame wars right there. The stuff I have read on QRZ is downright civil compared to some of the mailling lists I have been on.

For the record, I am a Ya-Hoo when it comes to packet. I have dittiled with it a little, but have not done anything grand or exciting with it. I am Joe Schmoe, id10t user.

Flex-net sounds like wireless token ring and that's not a bad thing. A method that lets each node in a given area know when to TX is good. This is at the link level (Think Token Ring) would allow you to use other protocols for the transport level (Think TCP/IP). I don't think it's a good idea have a "be everything, do everything" protocol for packet. Get data from here to there very fast is good enough, let the network/transport layer do the routing.

I read a good article in CQ about using software defined radios and squeezing 88kbps out of a 20kc channel IIRC. That's the way to go. Sure, it's not here yet, but it's coming and it will be OPEN, unlike some of the closed software packages that are now "free".

Can't wait to put that 44. class A to some use

Humorous links provided by Router God

 

Amateur tcpip is tcpip over Amateur Radio. The phrase was coined by the Amateur tcpip folks, back in the KA9Q NOS days.

I do not generally belittle Amateur tcpip, but I do generally tend to point out it's limitations. (No good for long-haul RF links, much more overhead per packet, very little Ham-related software for it, not easy or intuitive to set up, and so on.)

Static routing is pretty well the standard among Amateur tcpip users. It's all written in by hand. Sure, there are autorouters in use on the Internet and some intranets, but Amateur tcpip is not the Internet. The routing used by Hams on Amateur tcpip networks is generally pretty primitive stuff. Ever tried to set up a *NOS LAN?

I also point out the fact that Amateur tcpip has not given Hams any appreciable infrastructure. No network.

I point out the rabidly negative attitude that Amateur tcpip folks consistently display in the presence of anybody else, attempting to do anything else. I point it out because it is wrong. That kind of intolerance and narrow-mindedness has no place in this hobby - except in the U.S. Amateur tcpip community, where it has become so deeply entrenched that there are very few exceptions to it.

The phrase "high-speed / IP only" also originated with Amateur tcpip folks. Ever read the TAPR dude that CQ magazine brought in when Buck Rogers' digital column was dropped? That's where this particular gem of intolerance and narrow-mindedness came from.

Sorry, but I am not moved by your protestations about how unfairly Amateur tcpip is treated. I've watched them undermine and destroy amateur Packet Radio in the U.S., and the global HF digital network that once existed.

Go ahead and make my day by asking how those things were accomplished. I was in on the early planning sessions where the deliberate destruction of the global digital HF net was outlined.

"Digital HF is not usable with tcpip, so it has to go."

...and I was there to see the same methodology applied to terrestrial VHF/UHF networking that committed the cardinal "sin" of not being tcpip.

When this vandalism succeeded in effectively destroying packet radio in the U.S., the Amateur tcpip community promptly replaced it with - nothing.  

And with the exception of the efforts of a few Hams who do NOT put tcpip first, nothing is what we still have today.

Sorry, but those are the facts of Amateur tcpip. If you would like to make it into something more inclusive, more tolerant of anything different, and most especially more productive, then you have both my sympathy and my unqualified support. The sympathy is for the rabid negativity you will encounter from within the Amateur tcpip community when you attempt to do so.

Good luck in succeeding where everyone else has failed.

Personally, I think Amateur tcpip has a lot of potential, but not as an exclusive system that cannot accommodate anything else. My planning involving Internet/Packet gateways puts at least one in every local network. - But NOT for the purpose of undermining the use of Radio by Hams, the only application for them that has been widely encouraged or pursued to date.

FlexNet is inclusive, not exclusive. That in itself puts it way ahead of the tcpip-only paradigm. The fact that the only growing, advancing packet networks of any significance happen to be FlexNets, while there are no significant tcpip-only nets in existence gives Amateurs another clue as to which protocol is generally more useful for Hams.

Most Amateur tcpip folks who really get to play do so over FlexNet (AX25) RF networks.

Of course you could always prove me wrong... Just point out the large-scale tcpip-only Packet Radio RF network. How many states does it cover? How many hundred or thousand Hams use it every day? ( Rhetorical questions, since these networks do not exist )

Amateur tcpip has been just about the only thing discussed in digital symposiums across the US for the last decade. It has been "politcally correct" at Ham-Com, Dayton, and of course the DCC for ten years.

Where's the beef?  I think ten years is a fair trial. Time to move on to things that DO work, that DO get used. That's how you achieve critical mass.

As a fan of Amateur tcpip, ( non-Amateur tcpip not being germane to this discussion of Ham Radio networking ) you should be 1000% behind FlexNet, as that is where Hams get to play with tcpip in a meaningful fashion. It gives them an RF network to work with.

Charles, N5PVL

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5pvl @ May 28 2002,22:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do not generally belittle Amateur tcpip, but I do generally tend to point out it's limitations. (No good for long-haul RF links, much more overhead per packet, very little Ham-related software for it, not easy or intuitive to set up, and so on.)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Tell me why it's not good for long haul RF links and how is flex net better. The packet overhead should not be a huge problem with a 100kbps backbone. Little ham-related software? Are you kidding me? Difficult to setup? It would not be any harder than a cable modem or DSL, it's good ole TCP/IP. Heck, DHCP 'em if want.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5pvl @ May 28 2002,22:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Where's the beef? I think ten years is a fair trial. Time to move on to things that DO work, that DO get used. That's how you achieve critical mass.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Sounds like you are using what works for you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5pvl @ May 28 2002,22:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
As a fan of Amateur tcpip, ( non-Amateur tcpip not being germane to this discussion of Ham Radio networking ) you should be 1000% behind FlexNet, as that is where Hams get to play with tcpip in a meaningful fashion. It gives them an RF network to work with.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I still don't get this "Amateur TCP/IP" stuff, I don't care who coined the phrase. AX.25 is not X.25 for a good reason, it's a not full implementation of the specification. "Amateur TCP/IP" sounds like it is a cannibalized TCP/IP implementation.

I think you are too close to the "inner circle" to see it out here from user land.


--Terry

 

I do not generally belittle Amateur tcpip, but I do generally tend to point out it's limitations. ( No good for long-haul RF links, much more overhead per packet, very little Ham-related software for it, not easy or intuitive to set up, and so on. )

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tell me why it's not good for long haul RF links and how is flex net better. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I see that you are new to packet radio, and have not been exposed to these issues. I will give you a short explanation here, despite the fact that to do so is off-topic. The discussion here is about FlexNet, not Amateur tcpip. In future, please post questions about Amateur tcpip to the "Baud Rate Race" thread.

Amateur tcpip pretty well needs speed to survive. Partly because of the additional overhead Amateur tcpip packets carry, and partly because of attitudes most people who have been exposed to the Internet, 300 baud tcpip is generally agreed to be useless. If nobody wants to use it, "useless" is a good descriptor.

HF radio, the only reliable method Hams have to send data over any appreciable distance, is limited by the FCC to 300 baud. In actuality, you do not get 300 baud from 300 baud HF systems. What you usually get is throughput in the 30-56 baud range, with a few notable exceptions. The FCC's limitation is, in turn, based upon the laws of physics, which are not likely to be revised anytime soon. It's basically a question of bandwidth. The spectrum is shared with others, doing other things. You can't hog it all up for one purpose, and even if you could, it would still not be enough.

FlexNet is better simply because it is not limited to one protocol. (tcpip) The software associated with AX25 packet retains its viability at lower speeds, and since it is not limited to one protocol, advanced HF protocols such as CLOVER and PACTOR2 are usable with it. This is the advantage ( should be obvious ) of being inclusive rather than exclusive, and of  being viable over a wider range of speed.

Essentially: You can do tcpip and all that it is capable of ( using radio, of course ) over a FlexNet network. - But Amateur tcpip network can only accomodate tcpip, and so is severely limited.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The packet overhead should not be a huge problem with a 100kbps backbone[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You are right about that. Unfortunately, 100kbps backbone does not grow up magically from the earth. It must be developed, and building that infrastructure involves the participation and support of many Hams. Higher speed digital RF is more difficult and expensive to do, by several orders of magnitude, than low/medium speed digital RF.  

So that is what gets used first, and most often. Successful packet networks start off with the low/medium speed stuff that most Hams already have access to, and high-speed links are added incrementally, as possible. In the end, you end up with high-speed. Many have tried starting off with high-speed equipment in the first place, but only one group managed that trick... They had lots of money to play with, not a common condition in the Amateur Radio community. When the money dried up, so did the network.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Little ham-related software? Are you kidding me? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Nope. Take a look in the "Packet Radio" section of QRZ's downloads area. Over 300 files, maybe two or three related to Amateur tcpip. Compared to the great diversity of software available for AX25, there effectively is no Amateur tcpip software out there at all.

I am aware of perhaps a dozen or so programs using tcpip that were written to address the needs of Amateur Radio operators. The IP software included with operating systems CAN be used on the air by Hams at the baud rates available to Hams, but none of them are designed to - and it shows.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Difficult to setup? It would not be any harder than a cable modem or DSL, it's good ole TCP/IP. Heck, DHCP 'em if want. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You are forgetting that Hams use Ham Radio, with all of the special obligations and restrictions that implies. If you run tcpip over FlexNet, you have two basic parameters to set that are not IP related, MYCALL and TXDELAY.  If you use any of the tcpip-only software, there are literally dozens of RF-link related parameters to set, none of which are intuitive.

Try obtaining a copy of JNOS or TNOS, for example, then attempt to set one of them up, knowing what you know,  without asking for help from other Hams who have managed to get it to work. Just use the docs. Good luck!

Same goes for the LINUX implementations. Dozens of parameters to set, dozens of obscure, counter-intuitive applets to discover and figure out. Remember that I am talking about using it with Ham Radio here, not in an office LAN. Some Hams enjoy that kind of tinkering and trouble-shooting ( I am in that group ) but most do not, and you need wide-scale participation in order to build network.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I still don't get this "Amateur TCP/IP" stuff, I don't care who coined the phrase.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Amateur tcpip is tcpip over Amateur Radio. Seems pretty well self-explanitory to me... What part of it is hard to understand?

By definition, there is no "professional" Amateur Radio activity, on the air.  It is all done on an amateur basis, by law. That is part of our charter with the FCC.

* A reminder of my request to post further non-FlexNet questions on the "Baud Rate Race" thread, where tcpip is more "on topic".

P.S.. I disagree with your charaterization of yourself as a "Ya-hoo" in relation to packet radio. You seem pretty civilized to me, and have not disrupted this thread with your comments and questions.

Charles, N5PVL