<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.10.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
This has been a long-standing question for me...<BR>
<BR>
While there is TCP/IP traffic actively being carried, the AX.25 level system carries this invisibly unless you want to read the traced I/O. My expectation is that after ARP establishes the AX.25 link for encapsulation of TCP/IP content, that the link would appear in the AX25 STATUS command output for one example. In my experience it does not. Also in my experience I'm left wondering if the underlying ax system is performing OK in carrying IP content. Yes - there are IP STATUS reports that are very helpful, but not an AX.25 viewpoint. This missing link adds to the "magic" of jnos...<BR>
<BR>
There is another aspect to this that puzzles me. I see frequent (in my opinion) repeat ARP activity. I can explain it only if there is no cache to map AX to IP for transport. Considering that the 44... network is static, and the AX network is fairly unchanging over short periods (days), it seems wasteful to repeat ARP with the same question and same answer.<BR>
<BR>
So the question becomes: Is there good reason to hide AX system measurements where IP content is being encapsulated and transported in AX.25 packets? Because IP packet is typically broken into multiple AX packets, it seems useful to see both viewpoints? For example: when ax goes into "recovery" mode, IP simply shows as "waiting"... Further - if ARP is part of "keep alive" features, isn't ping a more effective tool? If this seems like I'm mucking around in system design, be mindful that the more obscure these things are the fewer users there are who can discuss jnos with authority. Can anyone expand my understanding?<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
<BR>
73<BR>
de [George (Skip) VerDuin] K8RRA k
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>