[Coco] IP packets on my coco

Mon Jun 6 18:58:36 EDT 2016

No worries Mark.  You bring up a perfectly valid point: Offloading the
duties of packet formulation, the oodles of checksums, etc very well could
be the most *usable* option.  And with feedback from the hardware folk, it
sounds as if there's plenty of real networking solutions.   Let me do more
experimentation and see just how good -or- bad native coco networking will
be, before we rush to a hardware solution. (my modified DW server is a fine
solution for now, hardware-wise)

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Mark Marlette <mmarlette at frontiernet.net>
wrote:

> Aaron,
>
>
> All of the development I am currently doing is based upon using Drivewire
> commands to/from the host. The host can be a PC(the original DriveWire
> sense), an Atmel AVR(as in my case) or a DEx(as in Gary's case). Using
> existing commands, if present, if not creating my own.
>
> It is then the responsibility of the host to perform the low level
> functions to get the jobs done. Apps written this way can careless what the
> base hardware actually is. It talks at a higher command level and the host
> performs all the low level functions and all low level / high level
> conversions.
> This is the basis as well for the MP3/WAV sound processing, Ethernet,
> Bluetooth and WiFi development currently going on at Cloud-9.
>
> Spoke briefly on this at the fest this past year, could spend a whole
> seminar on this alone. Routines for DNS, NO-IP client, Ping, SMTP, SNTP,
> UDP, WhatsMyIP are some of the current low level routines already
> functioning. These are on the Wiznet platform, eight sockets currently
> available. Off loading this to another device, to free up the CoCo to
> process other tasks.
>
> Not wishing to hijack Brett's original thread.......
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark Marlette
> http://www.cloud9tech.com
> mark at cloud9tech.com
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Aaron Wolfe <aawolfe at gmail.com>
> To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 3:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [Coco] IP packets on my coco
>
>
> I've been wishing for something like this to be connected to a coco for a
> long time.  In fact when I learned about these things is when I kind of
> lost interest in further DriveWire work... this is just a better solution
> imho.
>
> Then while exploring gary's (amazing) work with coco3 fpga, I thought: hey,
> now we can connect one of those network stack in a chip things real easily
> since the de1 can talk to them.   I talked with Gary and some other
> coconuts about this, and as I recall everyone thought compatibility with
> 'real' cocos was a major concern.  In a small community, it helps everybody
> have fun when projects inter-operate.
>
> If you can get the same controller attached to a real coco and the DEx
> boards, that's a standard that lots of different projects could use to do a
> lot of cool stuff.  Seems worth doing to me.  Have you thought about ways
> to avoid being tied to a single controller, or if that matters?
>
> Sounds awesome.  And also major kudos to Brett for the nice work on Fuzix
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Dave Philipsen <dave at davebiz.com> wrote:
> >
> > The ESP8266 itself.  In a full-blown networking implementation you would
> be able to have multiple connections all going at the same time.  This
> would be difficult with the ESP8266 as it stands now. The fact of the
> matter is, if you use the ESP8266 for a DECB program it will be more than
> adequate as you won't be doing any multi-tasking where other programs would
> need to access it at the same time.  If you wanted to use it under NitrOS9
> which could also require that you write a device driver for it, then you
> may have a problem running multiple programs simultaneously that would be
> using the internet.
> >
> > As I said, though, it's possible that someone could re-write the firmware
> of the ESP8266 to make it work.  There are already people out there who are
> customizing it.
> >
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/6/2016 2:20 PM, Salvador Garcia via Coco wrote:
> >>
> >> "...Wifi module may be a little restrictive as far as doing full-blown
> networking..."
> >>
> >> Are the restrictions more to do with the implementation of the CoCo on
> the FPGA, the DE1 hardware, or the ESP8266 itself?
> >> Thanks! Salvador
> >>
> >>
> >>        From: Dave Philipsen <dave at davebiz.com>
> >>   To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> >>   Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 12:35 PM
> >>   Subject: Re: [Coco] IP packets on my coco
> >>     Gary is working on the support for the Wifi module as we speak.  In
> >> fact, he already has some support in his latest test build.  As Brett
> >> has already pointed out, the Wifi module may be a little restrictive as
> >> far as doing full-blown networking but it will certainly be handy in a
> >> general way for doing the most common things like telnet, ftp, email,
> >> http, etc.
> >>
> >> The ESP8266 wifi module is also end user programmable so there's always
> >> the option of creating a custom version.
> >>
> >> I'm thinking that any sort of serial-to-ethernet module is going to have
> >> some restrictions (if for nothing else, the bottleneck of squeezing a
> >> lot of data through a standard serial port) as opposed to a 'real'
> >> ethernet interface.  Although Gary's plans are for a huge FIFO on the
> >> Wifi interface which would be very helpful.
> >>
> >> Some months ago I successfully transferred a file from a PC to a DE-1
> >> board using the wifi module.  The DE-1 board was not running CoCo3FPGA
> >> but it was a 6809-based computer.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dave
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>

-- 
Brett M. Gordon,
beretta42 at gmail.com