Post by thread:[PIC] Connecting 16F877 on internet by PSTN

Hello friends, I´m working in a project that demands to connect a 16F877 to a web server computer dialy to send some data colected by PIC during the day. I was thinking in use a Seiko S-7600 TCP-IP Stack + Modem Chip (Like CML Micro CMX868) to connect by PSTN. So, I heard that Seiko will discontinue the S-7600 part and I felt discouraged. Is this information true?? How can I implement a TCP-IP Stack?? There are others chips for this purpose (like S-7600) having conectivity with PSTN modems?? Any suggestions are welcome. Hugs, Eron. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

Do you have to use a PIC? If not, you could use a Rabbit Semiconductor RCM2300 module and external modem module. They have the PPP and TCP/IP functions in their library. They also have sample applications to get you up and running quickly. They are plug-in modules and not very expansive. You could also use the PIC as a slave device to the Rabbit via USART (the Rabbit has 4 of 'em) if the PIC portion of your project is already complete. You could probably get your application up and running in a few days. http://www.rabbitsemiconductor.com/products/rcm2300/index.html I actually have had one of their TCP/IP development kits running a web server for quite some time now at: http://64.32.150.109/index.html The Rabbit module is quite capable and fexible, but might be overkill for your application. you could also try Cermetek and other embedded modem manufacturers. I've seen several that had TCP/Ip stacks built into the modem. You just talk to the modem module with the PIC's USART and send it high level commands. It takes care of all the TCP/IP and ISP overhead. Matt Pobursky Maximum Performance Systems On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:29:42 -0300, Eron wrote: {Quote hidden}>Hello friends, > >I´m working in a project that demands to connect a 16F877 to a web >server computer dialy to send some data colected by PIC during the >day. > >I was thinking in use a Seiko S-7600 TCP-IP Stack + Modem Chip (Like >CML Micro CMX868) to connect by PSTN. >So, I heard that Seiko will discontinue the S-7600 part and I felt >discouraged. > >Is this information true?? > >How can I implement a TCP-IP Stack?? There are others chips for this >purpose (like S-7600) having conectivity with PSTN modems?? > >Any suggestions are welcome. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

Check out http://www.cermetek.com/ -Derek {Quote hidden}> -----Original Message----- > From: Eron [spam_OUTeron-sTakeThisOuTTERRA.COM.BR] > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 8:30 PM > To: .....PICLISTKILLspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU > Subject: [PIC] Connecting 16F877 on internet by PSTN > > > Hello friends, > > I´m working in a project that demands to connect a 16F877 to > a web server computer dialy to send some data colected by PIC > during the day. > > I was thinking in use a Seiko S-7600 TCP-IP Stack + Modem > Chip (Like CML Micro CMX868) to connect by PSTN. > So, I heard that Seiko will discontinue the S-7600 part and I > felt discouraged. > > Is this information true?? > > How can I implement a TCP-IP Stack?? There are others chips > for this purpose (like S-7600) having conectivity with PSTN > modems?? > > Any suggestions are welcome. > > > > Hugs, > > Eron. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

If you can stand a bit of a shift in development, you should check out Microchip's TCP/IP stack. The CD is available off their website. The only problems for your application are that it requires an 18 series chip. It's also entirely in C, which may or may not be a problem for you. I agree, I am also disapointed that the Seiko chip is going away. I would love to see a simple, cost effective solution to using Ethernet and TCP/IP with PICs. Hope this helps, Josh -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams Eron wrote: > I4m working in a project that demands to connect a 16F877 to a web server computer dialy to send some data colected by PIC during the day. > > How can I implement a TCP-IP Stack?? There are others chips for this purpose (like S-7600) having conectivity with PSTN modems?? -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

There is a cat box on the market that after a cat visits the box, it rakes the cat litter so the cat will have a pleasant experience the next time. From my understanding, this product will soon be available in a "internet model", so that the cat owner can see it's activity log while at work. The ability to leave a voice message for the cat, to be delivered after the cat's next visit, is still under discussion. I did something similar to what you want to do, except it was before the internet and just used a store bought external modem. When I detected a "Ring" I would answer the phone and say "This is a restricted site and unauthorized access is prohibited". Then would wait for the proper password to be entered. Saying nothing until the correct password was received. If after two tries at entering the password, both being incorrect, I would still say nothing, but would ignore any more data coming from the modem and start looking for loss of carrier signal from modem. When I received that, would hang up the modem. (Good luck hacking that!) Bill {Original Message removed}

Check out Siteplayer. Ethernet, TCP/IP, Web interface, UDP packets, and you don't have to deal with any of the details from teh PIC. I think the module is $29 in singles, and they also offer an RJ45 connector with all the magnetics built in for $5. It's small, about 1" square or so, and the dev kit is relatively cheap. For interfacing a PIC project to Ethernet I haven't seen anything easier yet. Not perfect, but a pretty cool little widget. Dale -- "Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly." - Arnold Edinborough On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Josh Koffman wrote: > If you can stand a bit of a shift in development, you should check out > Microchip's TCP/IP stack. The CD is available off their website. The > only problems for your application are that it requires an 18 series > chip. It's also entirely in C, which may or may not be a problem for > you. I agree, I am also disapointed that the Seiko chip is going away. I > would love to see a simple, cost effective solution to using Ethernet > and TCP/IP with PICs. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

Is that the one you had for sale awhile back? Josh -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams Dale Botkin wrote: > > Check out Siteplayer. Ethernet, TCP/IP, Web interface, UDP packets, and > you don't have to deal with any of the details from teh PIC. I think the > module is $29 in singles, and they also offer an RJ45 connector with all > the magnetics built in for $5. It's small, about 1" square or so, and the > dev kit is relatively cheap. For interfacing a PIC project to Ethernet I > haven't seen anything easier yet. Not perfect, but a pretty cool little > widget. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

Yep. Now on its way to its new owner. Like I said, it's not perfect for every application -- in my particular case, I needed something that would enable me to asynchronously send UDP packets over large IP networks. The show stopper was the IP stack -- it's designed as a web server that has a lot of interfacing ability. One thing they did that's pretty interesting is to eliminate the need for a default gateway and ARP protocol -- the SP simply sends all reply packets to the same IP and MAC address from which the request was received. Note that this means if you didn't receive a request, you've got a problem. Works fine for a web server, but in my case I wanted to be able to send a UDP packet to a known IP address. There is a way to do it but it requires that you know the IP *and MAC* address of the target host. As this was going to be a commercial product, making the user enter the MAC address of the gateway or host was really not acceptable. I needed ARP at least, so it wouldn't work for my particular application. For many remote control/status applications, though, it would be fine. Dale -- "Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly." - Arnold Edinborough On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Josh Koffman wrote: > Is that the one you had for sale awhile back? ... > Dale Botkin wrote: > > > > Check out Siteplayer. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

Funny thing, nobody suggested absolutely obvious variant: PIC + cheapest computer based on micro-ATX motherboard, I810 for example, connected via WinModem to WebServer. Eron did not say any word about case dimensions, power consumption. By the way, micro-ATX case is relatively smal. Power management is rather advanced under M$ software. Wake-up by PIC may be implemented. The cost will be aprox: Case $25 Motherboard $40 (Intel810) CPU $30 (VIA CoolRunner) RAM 128M $25 WinModem $10 HDD-20HB $65 Win95 $?? ---------------------------- Total <$200USA Going this way you are destined to fulfill your task. A lot of guys on the list once in a while are get connected to WebServers over PSTN. Nothing too complex. Going in other directions you may remain playing with TCP-IP for a long time, instead of developing an application. (Look at threads about wages) Good Luck. Mike. Eron wrote: {Quote hidden}> Hello friends, > > I´m working in a project that demands to connect a 16F877 to > a web server computer dialy to send some data colected by PIC > during the day. > > I was thinking in use a Seiko S-7600 TCP-IP Stack + Modem > Chip (Like CML Micro CMX868) to connect by PSTN. > So, I heard that Seiko will discontinue the S-7600 part and I > felt discouraged. > > Is this information true?? > > How can I implement a TCP-IP Stack?? There are others chips > for this purpose (like S-7600) having conectivity with PSTN > modems?? > > Any suggestions are welcome. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

Interesting...unfortunately I think I fall into the same problem you did. Ah well, something to think about for other projects I suppose. Thanks, Josh -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams Dale Botkin wrote: {Quote hidden}> > Yep. Now on its way to its new owner. Like I said, it's not perfect for > every application -- in my particular case, I needed something that would > enable me to asynchronously send UDP packets over large IP networks. The > show stopper was the IP stack -- it's designed as a web server that has a > lot of interfacing ability. One thing they did that's pretty interesting > is to eliminate the need for a default gateway and ARP protocol -- the SP > simply sends all reply packets to the same IP and MAC address from which > the request was received. Note that this means if you didn't receive a > request, you've got a problem. Works fine for a web server, but in my > case I wanted to be able to send a UDP packet to a known IP address. > There is a way to do it but it requires that you know the IP *and MAC* > address of the target host. As this was going to be a commercial product, > making the user enter the MAC address of the gateway or host was really > not acceptable. I needed ARP at least, so it wouldn't work for my > particular application. For many remote control/status applications, > though, it would be fine. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Check out Siteplayer. Ethernet, TCP/IP, Web interface, UDP > packets, and you don't have to deal with any of the details from > teh PIC. I think the module is $29 in singles, and they also offer > an RJ45 connector with all the magnetics built in for $5. It's > small, about 1" square or so, and the dev kit is relatively cheap. > For interfacing a PIC project to Ethernet I haven't seen anything > easier yet. Not perfect, but a pretty cool little widget. If it hadn't been for this post, I would have suggested using a FPGA. > Works fine for a web server, but in my > case I wanted to be able to send a UDP packet to a known IP > address. There is a way to do it but it requires that you know the > IP *and MAC* address of the target host. As this was going to be a > commercial product, making the user enter the MAC address of the > gateway or host was really not acceptable. I needed ARP at least, > so it wouldn't work for my particular application. For many remote > control/status applications, though, it would be fine. For anyone who hasn't already sold their module, or intends to use something similar to this in the future, there's an easy solution to this problem: send a PING to the server with a specific command in the body of the packet (which is usually not used in a PING) that tells the server to log that IP and MAC and use it to transmit whatever. The chances of someone sending that specific packet erroneously are unlikely, especially if you use a strange data length such as 9 bytes, whereas the normal is 32. You'd need a special program or script to do this, but I don't think it would really be too tough. Just a thought. - --Brendan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBPUrvSgVk8xtQuK+BEQLmyQCgy10MxPWWfTeqphA5a+rCfevJrmAAniJp e3oywHItKPctGsrr4NBDqLnr =vcs+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

Let me guess... SNMP? 8-) Dale -- "Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly." - Arnold Edinborough On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Josh Koffman wrote: > Interesting...unfortunately I think I fall into the same problem you > did. Ah well, something to think about for other projects I suppose. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Brendan Moran wrote: > For anyone who hasn't already sold their module, or intends to use > something similar to this in the future, there's an easy solution to > this problem: send a PING to the server with a specific command in > the body of the packet (which is usually not used in a PING) that > tells the server to log that IP and MAC and use it to transmit > whatever. The chances of someone sending that specific packet > erroneously are unlikely, especially if you use a strange data length > such as 9 bytes, whereas the normal is 32. UDP, TCP, ICMP, whatever -- still the same problem. If you're going to generate a packet out of the blue to send to a remote host, you have to have, or have a way to determine, the MAC address to use. On a local or switched network, you send an ARP request, get an ARP reply, get the MAC from that reply, and send the packet with your target IP address to that MAC address. On a non-local network you send an ARP request for the gateway, get the gateway's MAC from the ARP response, adn send the packet with your target IP to the gateway's MAC address. Siteplayer lacks ARP capability, which means you have to know the MAC address to send to. You can get this either from your received packet, or you can know the MAC ahead of time. Neither worked for me, though like I said getting the MAC address from the request packet works fine. Dale -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

> Siteplayer lacks ARP capability, which means you have to know the MAC > address to send to. You can get this either from your received packet, or > you can know the MAC ahead of time. Neither worked for me, though like I > said getting the MAC address from the request packet works fine. I was trying to say that if you want to generate a packet out of the blue and send it somewhere, a good way of having the info there ahead of time would be to run a config on the remote machine, which would send a ping to the Siteplayer server. The server would examine the contents of the ping, and if it contained a command that the server recognized, it would cache that IP and MAC, then it would use them next time that it wanted to send a packet out of the blue. I agree that this is not the best way to handle it, but I think it would work. Cheers, --Brendan -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Brendan Moran wrote: > I was trying to say that if you want to generate a packet out of the blue > and send it somewhere, a good way of having the info there ahead of time > would be to run a config on the remote machine, which would send a ping to > the Siteplayer server. The server would examine the contents of the ping, > and if it contained a command that the server recognized, it would cache > that IP and MAC, then it would use them next time that it wanted to send a > packet out of the blue. > > I agree that this is not the best way to handle it, but I think it would > work. Oh, you're comlpetely right, it would work fine. I misunderstood what you were saying. If it were any other project I'd have gone with something like that. In this case, though, the target audience was corporate customers with large networks. I really needed more flexibility in the network configuration, so decided to take a different approach. Dale -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

Thanks for your indication Matt! Although they dont4t have a distributor near hear, I will read more and take informtions about Rabbit solution. For the modem module... What4s the best choose? Module modems (like cermetek, CML Micro, Silicon-labs) or a comercial Modem?? I4m looking for a module modem for learn and implement on my project, but I was thinking that is easier and more available to use a comercial model? What do you think about? hugs, Eron. Matt Pobursky wrote: > Do you have to use a PIC? If not, you could use a Rabbit Semiconductor > RCM2300 module and external modem module. They have the PPP and TCP/IP -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listservKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

Hello Josh, I saw at microchip web page about TCP/IP Stack for 18 series. But I want to develop a simple card, with the minimum requirements, just for connect and send a few of informations. It was a pity that when I needed, S7600 was over.... Hugs, Eron. Josh Koffman wrote: > If you can stand a bit of a shift in development, you should check out > Microchip's TCP/IP stack. The CD is available off their website. The > only problems for your application are that it requires an 18 series > chip. It's also entirely in C, which may or may not be a problem for... -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email .....listservKILLspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

Thanks Mike. But the dimensions of micro-ATX solutions and costs are prohibitives in the application... Eron. >Funny thing, nobody suggested absolutely obvious variant: >PIC + cheapest computer based on micro-ATX motherboard, >I810 for example, connected via WinModem to WebServer. >Eron did not say any word about case dimensions, power >consumption. >The cost will be aprox: ---------------------------- >Total <$200USA -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email EraseMElistservspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

Hello Dale, Siteplayer seems a cost-efective solution. I4ll download the docs to see them. Can I connect this module directly with a modem?? Hugs, Eron. Dale Botkin wrote: > Check out Siteplayer. Ethernet, TCP/IP, Web interface, UDP packets, > and you don't have to deal with any of the details from teh PIC. I > think the module is $29 in singles, and they also offer an RJ45 > connector with all the magnetics built in for $5. -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listservspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

I don't think so, it's got an Ethernet interface built in but no provision for a modem interface. Of course several manufacturers make routers with integrated modems that will dial and connect when a packet needs to be sent -- Cisco for one -- but I suspect this will be too expensive an alternative. Dale -- "Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly." - Arnold Edinborough On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Eron wrote: > Hello Dale, > > Siteplayer seems a cost-efective solution. > I4ll download the docs to see them. > Can I connect this module directly with a modem?? -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList @spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

If I understand the requirement of this thread right, Dr. Edward Cheungs project on a 16F877 based web server would be just right; uses all non proprietary components available off the shelf. Only issue might be the availibility of old ISA ethernet cards, Also check up www.rof.net/yp/alphaone/activities/electronics/3c509b/ , and a great tutorial at http://www.boondog.com/tutorials/internetControl/internetControl.htm Regards, Anand Dhuru {Original Message removed}

Nope, I'm working on a long term project where the original software guy decided to use IPX. Works fine on PC to PC, but now that we're making stand alone boxes...it's hard to find support. Plus any node could initiate at any time, so I can't always rely on one side transmitting first. Was SNMP your stumbling block? :) Josh -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams Dale Botkin wrote: > > Let me guess... SNMP? > > 8-) > > Dale -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

Thanks, Although I need for a PSTN connection version, the project is very interesting. []´s Eron. > > If I understand the requirement of this thread right, Dr. Edward Che ungs > project on a 16F877 based web server would be just right; uses all n on > proprietary components available off the shelf. Only issue might be the > availibility of old ISA ethernet cards, > > > Also check up www.rof.net/yp/alphaone/activities/electronics/ 3c509b/ > , and a great tutorial at > http://www.boondog.com/tutorials/internetControl/internetControl.htm > > Regards, -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

No, SNMP is easy enough. The project I was working on needed to send an SNMP trap occasionally to a remote host. Dale -- "Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly." - Arnold Edinborough On Sun, 4 Aug 2002, Josh Koffman wrote: > Was SNMP your stumbling block? > > :) > > > Dale Botkin wrote: > > > > Let me guess... SNMP? -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > If I understand the requirement of this thread right, Dr. Edward > Cheungs project on a 16F877 based web server would be just right; > uses all non proprietary components available off the shelf. Only > issue might be the availibility of old ISA ethernet cards, Is this the old "desolder a realtek ethernet driver" trick? - --Brendan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBPVAe7AVk8xtQuK+BEQKSPACfXgCt6DZb2eNEXctGWHQTkXN6Sd4AoJ8X 4X1nvxHHL/504vN1UwOA03lq =xNX5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Brendan Moran wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > If I understand the requirement of this thread right, Dr. Edward > > Cheungs project on a 16F877 based web server would be just right; > > uses all non proprietary components available off the shelf. Only > > issue might be the availibility of old ISA ethernet cards, > > Is this the old "desolder a realtek ethernet driver" trick? No, it's the "solder your PIC based project to an ISA bus card" trick. Neat trick, but try to find a reliable, viable source of stable, identical new ISA bus Ethernet cards. Heh. Works great for a one-off, yes, but definitely not good for production. Dale -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > > If I understand the requirement of this thread right, Dr. > > > Edward Cheungs project on a 16F877 based web server would be > > > just right; uses all non proprietary components available off > > > the shelf. Only issue might be the availibility of old ISA > > > ethernet cards, > > > > Is this the old "desolder a realtek ethernet driver" trick? > > No, it's the "solder your PIC based project to an ISA bus card" > trick. Neat trick, but try to find a reliable, viable source of > stable, identical new ISA bus Ethernet cards. Heh. Works great > for a one-off, yes, but definitely not good for production. I think I liked mine better. Apparently realtek ethernet ICs are really easy to use, and are the basis of lots of old ethernet cards. Haven't done so myself, but apparently it works. - --Brendan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBPVA4XgVk8xtQuK+BEQIfOwCeLqnewJ4FnsbwUpcr+yHi1L2L2LoAoLDj V/sM58wF69YvYBLRKXXFojFY =6fJX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Brendan Moran wrote: >I think I liked mine better. Apparently realtek ethernet ICs are >really easy to use, and are the basis of lots of old ethernet cards. >Haven't done so myself, but apparently it works. How true ;-). Pick up a ISA ethernet card claimed to be NE2000 compatible and you're done. Almost. The versions on those chips changed too fast to count. Peter -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

>How true ;-). Pick up a ISA ethernet card claimed to be NE2000 compatible >and you're done. Almost. The versions on those chips changed too fast to >count. I think you will find that even many of the PCI cards use chips that are NE2000 compatible, it is just that they have the PCI configuration circuitry in front of them, not necessarily on the same chip. I seem to remember looking at a chip from National Semiconductor recently which was compatible with the older chips that were used on the true NE2000 cards. Cannot remember the chip number off hand, but recall it was an extra digit on the old chip that is on the ISA NE2000 cards. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 01:27:43 +0300 "Peter L. Peres" <RemoveMEplpTakeThisOuTACTCOM.CO.IL> writes: > How true ;-). Pick up a ISA ethernet card claimed to be NE2000 > compatible > and you're done. Almost. The versions on those chips changed too > fast to > count. > > Peter > Drifiting off topic... Last weekend I decided to take an old ISA 486 and move it from Windoze 3.11 to RH 7.3 The machine has a no name NE2000 compatible card in it. It's based on the RTL8009. I can't find a Linux driver for it. No one has responded yet on news:comp.os.linux.help . I can't find anything in Google other than other people looking for the same thing. Anyone know of a driver for such a card? THANKS! Harold FCC Rules Online at http://hallikainen.com/FccRules Lighting control for theatre and television at http://www.dovesystems.com Reach broadcasters, engineers, manufacturers, compliance labs, and attorneys. Advertise at http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/ . ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: dl.http://www.juno.com/get/web/. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

Really? I've had RTL cards work before... maybe it's configured for some oddball address/IRQ that the ne2k driver doesn't check. I've had that happen several times; I've also had to hack the order in which the card drivers are tried to get the right one to come up first, but that was with PCI cards IIRC. See if you can get it configured for 0x300, IRQ 3 or 5 and see if it works, I think the ne2k driver should work. Dale -- "Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly." - Arnold Edinborough On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Harold M Hallikainen wrote: > Drifiting off topic... Last weekend I decided to take an old ISA 486 > and move it from Windoze 3.11 to RH 7.3 The machine has a no name NE2000 > compatible card in it. It's based on the RTL8009. I can't find a Linux > driver for it. No one has responded yet on news:comp.os.linux.help . I > can't find anything in Google other than other people looking for the > same thing. Anyone know of a driver for such a card? -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email spamBeGonelistservspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

Tried 'modprobe -v ne', then 'ifconfig x.x.x.x eth0' ? Also look at 'dmesg|less'. All as root. Peter On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Harold M Hallikainen wrote: {Quote hidden}>On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 01:27:43 +0300 "Peter L. Peres" <TakeThisOuTplpEraseMEspam_OUTACTCOM.CO.IL> >writes: >> How true ;-). Pick up a ISA ethernet card claimed to be NE2000 >> compatible >> and you're done. Almost. The versions on those chips changed too >> fast to >> count. >> >> Peter >> > > Drifiting off topic... Last weekend I decided to take an old ISA 486 >and move it from Windoze 3.11 to RH 7.3 The machine has a no name NE2000 >compatible card in it. It's based on the RTL8009. I can't find a Linux >driver for it. No one has responded yet on news:comp.os.linux.help . I >can't find anything in Google other than other people looking for the >same thing. Anyone know of a driver for such a card? > >THANKS! > >Harold > > > >FCC Rules Online at http://hallikainen.com/FccRules >Lighting control for theatre and television at http://www.dovesystems.com > >Reach broadcasters, engineers, manufacturers, compliance labs, and >attorneys. >Advertise at http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/ . > > >________________________________________________________________ >GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! >Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! >Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: >dl.http://www.juno.com/get/web/. > >-- >http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different >ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. > > > -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email RemoveMElistservTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

Hi, fortunately, our FAE has begun to sell the mentioned chip (Realtek RTL-8019) off the shelf. It costs $6 or so. Even hybrid transformer is available. Regards, Imre +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity | | to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or | | privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or | | other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this | | information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient | | is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the | | sender and delete the material from any computer. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Alan B. Pearce wrote: {Quote hidden}> >How true ;-). Pick up a ISA ethernet card claimed to be NE2000 compatible > >and you're done. Almost. The versions on those chips changed too fast to > >count. > > I think you will find that even many of the PCI cards use chips that are > NE2000 compatible, it is just that they have the PCI configuration circuitry > in front of them, not necessarily on the same chip. I seem to remember > looking at a chip from National Semiconductor recently which was compatible > with the older chips that were used on the true NE2000 cards. > > Cannot remember the chip number off hand, but recall it was an extra digit > on the old chip that is on the ISA NE2000 cards. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different > ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. > > > -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listservEraseME.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body