Re: LYNX-DEV lynx - tcp/ip

[Michael Sokolov]

David Woolley <address@hidden> wrote:
> You are pinging using the ping that came with the protocol stack - even
> with Winsock, there is no such thing as a generic ping program as Winsock
> (1.1 at least) doesn't support ping and it has to go in underneath the
> standardised interface and access the proprietory parts.

I don't think so, I think you can get a raw socket with the socket() call under
WINSOCK and implement a generic ping program. You should even be able to take
the BSD UNIX ping program and port it to WINSOCK with only minor modifications.
But I may be mistaken, since I don't have my copy of the WINSOCK spec handy
(it's at home and I'm writing this at work).

> You are using a DOS version of Lynx.  There is no standard TCP interface for
> DOS, unlike Windows, with Winsock.  The only DOS mode TCP/IP programs you
> will be able to use are those designed for the Novell stack (you might be
> using kermit, which has support for many different telnet interfaces).

Developing DOSSOCK is one of my major plans. It will do the same thing for DOS
as WINSOCK does for Windows.

> The DOS version of Lynx solves the problem by assuming that you are have
> no networking software and providing its own TCP/IP protocol stack, which
> interfaces with a publically documented interface for which free (GPL mainly)
> software is available for most network cards and for SLIP and PPP.

As you point out yourself, this approach is not the way ARPA has intended
TCP/IP to work and brings a host of problems and limitations. TCP/IP must be
implemented the Berkeley way: one TCP/IP stack for the system and a
standardized socket interface through which any app can access it. This idea
has been ported to Windows by the WINSOCK developers, and soon it will be
ported to DOS by me.

As for Lynx for DOS, I'll develop a version that uses DOSSOCK as soon as I
develop DOSSOCK itself. However, I definitely won't base it on Mr. Dickey's
codeset (will probably use Fote's latest one).

> If you have an ODI based stack, and you don't need TCP/IP for anything
> except Lynx, you may be able to unbind it from the Netware stuff and use
> the ODIPKT, packet driver over ODI, shim.  Note that TCP is not designed
> to be split at this level so you will lose TCP/IP support for non-packet
> driver applications (kermit will be OK, as long as you don't try to run it
> at the same time** as Lynx, as it has an internal, packet driver based
> stack as well).
> 
> If can you meet the no other TCP/IP applications condition, you may be
> able to convert to an ODI stack or even to a packet driver stack.
> 
> If you must coexist with Netware (or Winsock) TCP/IP applications, the next
> solution is to install a second ethernet card and use that just for packet
> driver applications (you will need a second IP address).
> 
> If none of the above are acceptable, you are demonstrating why a standard like
> Winsock was needed and should go to the newsgroup comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
> for further help.  However don't expect to get anything better than the above
> (there may be mention of pktmux, but note that this comes with a warning that
> the way it works is essentially unreliable).

Here you give an excellent reason to develop DOSSOCK.

Sincerely,
Michael Sokolov
Phone: 440-449-0299
ARPA Internet SMTP mail: address@hidden