[ax25-layer2] 7-byte address proposal

[Robert Bruninga]

If possible, my initial inclination is that something new should somehow
be "visibile".  Just for the purpose of making sure thta users do not
try to field totally orthogonal systems on the same frequencies and
neither group then can see any clue why their systems are not working.

By making them somehow backwards "visibile" to AX.25, then it will
discourage unintended consequences....  Bob, WB4APR

>>> scott at opentrac.org 08/02/06 4:00 PM >>>
If you want to avoid interference with existing AX.25 traffic, why not use a
different FCS polynomial?  Or simply take the one's compliment of the FCS
and you can be sure that it'll never appear to be a valid frame.

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ax25-layer2-bounces at lists.tapr.org 
> [mailto:ax25-layer2-bounces at lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of 
> Samuel A. Falvo II
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:56 AM
> To: Discussion of Link Layer use of AX.25
> Subject: Re: [ax25-layer2] 7-byte address proposal
> 
> On 8/2/06, James Wagner <ka7ehk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Back to the question at hand: y-byte addresses.
> >
> > I like Samuel's idea. My big concern is about backward 
> compatibility.
> > How would an ax.2.2 or earlier protocol device handle the 7-byte
> > addressed packets?
> 
> Since the address field would be an odd-ball size (2 bytes over the
> normative sizes defined in the 2.2 spec) it *should* drop the frame as
> being an invalid frame.
> 
> -- 
> Samuel A. Falvo II
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ax25-layer2 mailing list
> ax25-layer2 at lists.tapr.org 
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ax25-layer2 
> 
> 




_______________________________________________
ax25-layer2 mailing list
ax25-layer2 at lists.tapr.org 
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ax25-layer2