[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: baycom sethdlc No such device (19)



On Thursday 18 December 2003 14:41, Tim Neu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 08:28:09AM +0100, Sebastian Muszynski wrote:
> > > I'm back for more punishment :)
> > >
> > > Thank you Sebastian.  I followed your directions to the letter but I'm
> > > still getting this error:
> > > root@benchotesto:~# call w6zzk-1 bcsf0
> > > axconfig: port bcsf0 not active
> > > call: no AX.25 port data configured
> > > root@benchotesto:~#
> > >
> > > I'll attach my session log that I made in case it might be useful.
> >
> > The important connection between kernel module and your axports consists
> > in your ifconfig settings! If you use "ke6sls-10" in your axports for
> > port "bcsf0" (you can call the port what every you want) you must use the
> > same callsign in your ifconfig settings ('ifconfig bcsf0 hw ax25
> > ke6sls-10').
> >
> >
> > In addition the syntax of call is 'call <port> <callsign>'.
>
> I thought the call command couldn't directly address TNCs which are real
> network devices without a utility such as net2kiss - to generate a KISS
> stream which the kernel ax25 can talk to.  (and also so that call,
> ax25d,listen, etc all work).
>
> Am I mistaken?

Yes! Totally!

'call' uses the kernel ax25 to adress the hardware (Jaye has a modem!).
ax25 hardware can be handled like an network interface (e.g. for ipax).
'net2kiss' has a very different kind of task. It can convert a network
ax25 driver to a kiss stream. (e.g. to bind modems which can't talk
kiss to kiss-only applications)

> It would be wonderful if ax25d and call could now directly
> access interfaces without net2kiss.

sorry - nonsense....

> It looks to me like your TNC is showing up as a hardware network interface, 
> and the call command knows nothing about it...

call knowns nothing about the hardware it only knows the kernel and his ax.25 
stack. The kernel shows ax25 hardware as a network interface because you can
use it as these... 

Sebastian




Reply to: