Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Roadshow 68K Revisitied  (Read 5045 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Golem!dk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2002
  • Posts: 414
    • Show only replies by Golem!dk
    • http://www.google.com/
Re: Roadshow 68K Revisitied
« Reply #14 from previous page: November 22, 2010, 10:41:08 AM »
Quote from: magnetic;593484
Well thanks for the post but we need way more detais and some benchmarks..


Have a look here.
~
 

Offline olsen

Re: Roadshow 68K Revisitied
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2010, 10:53:22 AM »
Quote from: magnetic;593484
Well thanks for the post but we need way more detais and some benchmarks..


It's right here on www.amiga.org on page 11 of the thread.

In the same thread, on the next pages I also gave some figures for a baseline test I made on a puny Amiga 600HD, running AmigaOS 3.1, with 2 MBytes of main memory, the original MC68000 CPU installed, using a PCMCIA NE2000 card with the cnet.device driver.

I think Roadshow doesn't do so bad in terms of benchmarks, etc. ;)

You might want to read the whole thread. It's part of what got me going again, updating Roadshow 68k to make it into a commercial product.
 

Offline olsen

Re: Roadshow 68K Revisitied
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2010, 10:55:19 AM »
Quote from: kolla;593486
Benchmarks? For a m68k tcp stack? What for?


Perspective? Given how many Amiga TCP/IP stacks still available today, it's one more bullet in the list of items to check when making a choice.
 

Offline olsen

Re: Roadshow 68K Revisitied
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2010, 10:57:21 AM »
Quote from: kolla;593511
@Gulliver
Nothing prevents anyone from compiling the AROS IP stack for OS3.x today already :)


And there are some people complaining that the hurdles are too high for the common Amiga user today...

Some guys certainly love a challenge ;)
 

Offline TCMSLP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Posts: 301
    • Show only replies by TCMSLP
    • http://www.coherer.net
Re: Roadshow 68K Revisitied
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2010, 12:37:55 PM »
I'm looking forward to the release of this; finally something to replace the old commercial stacks which are no longer available :)
A1200 50MHz 68030 16Mb, PCMCIA Ethernet, Indivision AGA MkIIcr
http://www.coherer.net Coherer: Electro!
 

Offline Piru

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
    • Show only replies by Piru
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
Re: Roadshow 68K Revisitied
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2010, 01:24:23 PM »
Is the DHCP bug fixed?
 

Offline olsen

Re: Roadshow 68K Revisitied
« Reply #20 on: November 22, 2010, 03:39:02 PM »
Quote from: Piru;593539
Is the DHCP bug fixed?


Yes, and confirmed by more than one user that it is indeed fixed.
 

Offline Piru

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
    • Show only replies by Piru
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
Re: Roadshow 68K Revisitied
« Reply #21 on: November 22, 2010, 04:20:27 PM »
Quote from: olsen;593557
Yes, and confirmed by more than one user that it is indeed fixed.
Good. DHCP is one of those things you really have to fight with. Reading the RFC doesn't really prepare you for all the weird stuff that's found in the wild... I've had my share of "fun" fixing DHCP client, too ;-)
 

Offline olsen

Re: Roadshow 68K Revisitied
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2010, 12:11:22 PM »
Quote from: Piru;593563
Good. DHCP is one of those things you really have to fight with. Reading the RFC doesn't really prepare you for all the weird stuff that's found in the wild... I've had my share of "fun" fixing DHCP client, too ;-)


I admit that the DHCP client issues completely blindsided me. The code was originally written some 6-7 years ago, and I performed my own compliance testing (ahem) with the gear I had at hand at home. Written to conform to the original RFCs it worked as I expected it to.

But a couple of years later, the error reports came in, some of which were so bizarre that I struggled to put them into context. For example, in some cases the initial IP address allocation, etc. worked, but the renewal requests were consistently ignored. In other cases the initial IP address allocation consistently failed. How to make sense of that?

Well, I now know better, but I wonder if there is any lesson to be learned. The DHCP specs appear to make it too easy for implementors to come up with code that lacks robustness. When I wrote the PPP/PPPoE drivers from scratch, using the RFCs as the only reference, I never ran into the type of interoperability issues I faced with the DHCP client code :(
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16882
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Roadshow 68K Revisitied
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2010, 01:31:49 PM »
Quote from: Piru;593563
Reading the RFC doesn't really prepare you for all the weird stuff that's found in the wild...


Is there any RFC this observation doesn't apply to? :lol:
int p; // A
 

Offline LoadWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2901
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by LoadWB
Re: Roadshow 68K Revisitied
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2010, 02:37:08 PM »
Quote from: Karlos;594048
Is there any RFC this observation doesn't apply to? :lol:


I propose an April 1 RFC which demonstrates how useless RFC-compliance can be.