Searching \ for 'TCP/IP, smallest server, blah blah' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=tcpip+smallest+server
Search entire site for: 'TCP/IP, smallest server, blah blah'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'TCP/IP, smallest server, blah blah'
2000\01\11@192841 by Dennis Gearon

flavicon
face
Anyone get hold of code for the small dedicated TCP/IP stacks that have
been implemented on PIC's? All I really need  is HTML <GET> <SET> to
make a sprinkler controller controllable, the interface programmable,
and to get status updates.

--
________________________________________________________________
Dennis K. Gearon (Kegley)
Scientific Instrument Technician, School of EIT
Oregon Institute of Technology - One of USA's 100 Best College Buys
3201 Campus Drive
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Voice   1-541-885-1563
FAX     1-541-885-1689
email   spam_OUTgearondTakeThisOuTspamoit.edu
I am here only to be truly helpful
________________________________________________________________

2000\01\11@202817 by quozl

flavicon
face
Dennis,

I think you replied to an [OT] thread message, which can cause people to
ignore your message despite the new subject line.  Many mail readers
will have connected your message to the [OT] thread because you used the
reply function instead of posting a new message.

Specifically, your message has a header including a line References:
that has the message identification of the [OT] message.

On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 04:25:47PM -0800, Dennis Gearon wrote:
> Anyone get hold of code for the small dedicated TCP/IP stacks that have
> been implemented on PIC's? All I really need  is HTML <GET> <SET> to
> make a sprinkler controller controllable, the interface programmable,
> and to get status updates.

Just like to point out that it is GET and POST.  Also that you do not
need to use POST, but can implement any functionality with GET as well.

I too am interested to know if anybody has crammed TCP/IP over PPP or
SLIP into something as small as a 16F84.  Example code wanted.

--
James Cameron   .....quozlKILLspamspam@spam@us.netrek.org   http://quozl.us.netrek.org/

2000\01\11@204513 by JB

flavicon
face
www.embeddedethernet.com/EmbEthPICSample.html

At 12:26 PM 1/12/00 +1100, you wrote:
>I too am interested to know if anybody has crammed TCP/IP over PPP or
>SLIP into something as small as a 16F84.  Example code wanted.
>
>--
>James Cameron   quozlspamKILLspamus.netrek.org   http://quozl.us.netrek.org/
>

2000\01\11@234150 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
> I too am interested to know if anybody has crammed TCP/IP over PPP or
> SLIP into something as small as a 16F84.  Example code wanted.

Personally I think it's too large a target. I plan to get a couple of my
students working on UDP/SLIP. I think it's doable in a small PIC because
UDP has none of TCP's overhead for flow control and sequencing.

What I'm really interested in is figuring out a system where multiple
RS-485 connected PIC hosts can use a single line to transmit UDP/SLIP
packets into a gateway.

BAJ

2000\01\11@234829 by quozl
flavicon
face
Seen it.  Not useful.

(a) uses Ethernet rather than PPP or SLIP,
(b) uses UDP rather than TCP.

I've already implemented UDP in Forth on an 8085 over SLIP.
That's trivial by comparison to TCP.

On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 06:43:35PM -0700, JB wrote:
> www.embeddedethernet.com/EmbEthPICSample.html
> At 12:26 PM 1/12/00 +1100, you wrote:
> >I too am interested to know if anybody has crammed TCP/IP over PPP or
> >SLIP into something as small as a 16F84.  Example code wanted.

--
James Cameron   .....quozlKILLspamspam.....us.netrek.org   http://quozl.us.netrek.org/

2000\01\11@235229 by Anupam

flavicon
face
There's some info here, although no code.
http://www-ccs.cs.umass.edu/~shri/iPic.html
This one uses PIC 12c508, if i remember.

plus there's somethign on it at microchip website.
(section: internet connectivity using mcus)

Anupam

> {Original Message removed}

2000\01\12@003345 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
>
> There's some info here, although no code.
> http://www-ccs.cs.umass.edu/~shri/iPic.html
> This one uses PIC 12c508, if i remember.

It has to be a hoax. There's simply not enough space or speed to implement
a full TCP stack plus a web server in the 12C509 @ 115.2kbs. There's no code
and no independant duplication of the project. It's a hoax.

My opinion is that small uC need not be full blown TCP servers anyway. The real
objective is to use a protocol stack that is well defined and well debugged
on the server end so that A) you don't have to write/debug the server side
of the stack B) you can use easily written applications on the server side
and C) so that you can actually route information over an intranet/internet.

UDP serves this task beautifully. You can test simply by pinging the node.
tcpdump is the perfect tool for observing traffic. Apps simply open a UDP
port and start send/recv to communicate. With RS485 the cost is little more
than an 8 pin transceiver and two I/O pins.

I don't feel I need the world's smallest web server. What I really want to
have is the world's smallest internet accessible switch/datalogger/etc.

BAJ

2000\01\12@013649 by Anupam

flavicon
face
incidently, the link is from Microchip website.
check: http://www.microchip.com/internet/index.htm
If it is a hoax, too bad. BTW,Is it really impossible on a '509??
:-)
anupam
{Quote hidden}

2000\01\12@044336 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   There's some info here, although no code.
   http://www-ccs.cs.umass.edu/~shri/iPic.html
   This one uses PIC 12c508, if i remember.

Last time this came up, it was widely accused of being a fraud.  The current
offline status of the demo might support that theory...

We did have some local discussions about whether there was a way to cheat
that would be undetectable in normal operation ie "it's not a real tcp web
server, it just looks and acts like a real tcp web server."  I can't say
much more till cisco decides whether they want to try for a patent along
those lines.  (I'm pushing for a "publish" scenario, which is more work for
me (and less for lawyers.)  It could allow nearly any micro to provide some
degree of web service with very little code.)

BillW

2000\01\12@083911 by Jim Hartmann

flavicon
face
If you haven't read about the Seiko chip, take a look at
http://www.mycal.net/wsweb/
The chip appears on the outside to behave like a nice UART, in fact it is
used as a pass-through UART during dialing etc.  Then a bit is flipped in a
register and the chip establishes a PPP link.  I believe the pricing is in
the $8 range.

-Jim

2000\01\12@092108 by jamesnewton

flavicon
face
www.chat.ru/~zhengxi/wwwpic/source.htm 16F84 implementing TCP/IP,
HTTP, CGI (?) with source!

and others at:
http://204.210.50.240/techref/default.asp?url=tcpip.htm

which is back up the morning after the cleaning people kicked the power cord
out last night... Arrrrghhhh!

James Newton EraseMEjamesnewtonspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgeocities.com phone:1-619-652-0593
http://techref.homepage.com NOW OPEN (R/O) TO NON-MEMBERS!
Members can add private/public comments/pages ($0 TANSTAAFL web hosting)


{Original Message removed}

2000\01\12@093758 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
> > I too am interested to know if anybody has crammed TCP/IP over PPP or
> > SLIP into something as small as a 16F84.  Example code wanted.
>
> Personally I think it's too large a target. I plan to get a couple of my
> students working on UDP/SLIP. I think it's doable in a small PIC because
> UDP has none of TCP's overhead for flow control and sequencing.

Sequencing is ameliorated by making sure each page, file, etc fits into
one TCP packet (I believe max 1024 bytes) which is still substantial.

Flow control is not too difficult if using PPP or SLIP, as the serial
connection has hardware flow control.  Let the PPP or SLIP server do the
buffering for you...

-Adam

2000\01\12@093955 by James Paul

flavicon
face
James,

I keep getting "FILE NOT AVAILABLE" errors whenever I try to
access this site....
   http://www.chat.ru/~zhengxi/wwwpic/source.htm 16F84

Are you sure it's still active?

                                      Regards,

                                        Jim


On Wed, 12 January 2000, James Newton wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2000\01\12@094411 by jamesnewton

flavicon
face
Yup, I'm a looken at the page! I didn't put the 16F84 on the end though. The
URL stops with source.htm.

James Newton @spam@jamesnewtonKILLspamspamgeocities.com phone:1-619-652-0593
http://techref.homepage.com NOW OPEN (R/O) TO NON-MEMBERS!
Members can add private/public comments/pages ($0 TANSTAAFL web hosting)

{Original Message removed}

2000\01\12@094631 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
The best guess takes place when one notices that the files on the server
are all at different ports. (http://128.119.41.46:4176/index0.html -
replace "index0.html" with any text, same 'file')  If you make ANY
request on a different port, you will get different portions of the
eeprom memory, until the end of file character the eeprom probably has.

It does seem to be non communicative now, but that was it's behavior
when it first came out.

-Adam

William Chops Westfield wrote:
>
>     There's some info here, although no code.
>     http://www-ccs.cs.umass.edu/~shri/iPic.html
>     This one uses PIC 12c508, if i remember.
>
> Last time this came up, it was widely accused of being a fraud.  The current
> offline status of the demo might support that theory...

2000\01\12@094635 by James Paul

flavicon
face
Actually, what I said before isn't totally accurate.
I can get to the page listed, but when I try to look
at the files listed there, thats when I get the errors.

                                 Thanks and Regards,

                                        Jim


On Wed, 12 January 2000, "James Newton" wrote:

>
> Yup, I'm a looken at the page! I didn't put the 16F84 on the end though. The
> URL stops with source.htm.
>
> James Newton KILLspamjamesnewtonKILLspamspamgeocities.com phone:1-619-652-0593
> http://techref.homepage.com NOW OPEN (R/O) TO NON-MEMBERS!
> Members can add private/public comments/pages ($0 TANSTAAFL web hosting)
>
> {Original Message removed}

2000\01\12@101120 by jamesnewton

flavicon
face
Well, the site is slow as heck, probably because its getting /.'d right now
buy the PICList members <GRIN> but the .zip file link works and has all the
other files, masmpic.htm works, pic2.htm works... What exact link isn't
working and, not that I mind helping, but wouldn't it be better to ask the
guy who's site this is if you find a broken link on his site? I'm going to
email him and ask if he wants a mirror site.

James Newton RemoveMEjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTspamgeocities.com phone:1-619-652-0593
http://techref.homepage.com NOW OPEN (R/O) TO NON-MEMBERS!
Members can add private/public comments/pages ($0 TANSTAAFL web hosting)

{Original Message removed}

2000\01\12@102417 by Dan Creagan

flavicon
face
Jim,

I just got the download.  You might just want to keep trying and be a bit
patient (it is slow).

Dan

{Quote hidden}

cord
> > out last night... Arrrrghhhh!
> >
> > James Newton spamBeGonejamesnewtonspamBeGonespamgeocities.com phone:1-619-652-0593
> > http://techref.homepage.com NOW OPEN (R/O) TO NON-MEMBERS!
> > Members can add private/public comments/pages ($0 TANSTAAFL web hosting)
> >
> >
> > {Original Message removed}

2000\01\12@111530 by Severson, Rob

flavicon
face
James,

Can you post or email the wwwpic.zip file? When I download the file it is
corrupt.

Thanks

-

> {Original Message removed}

2000\01\12@112812 by jamesnewton

flavicon
face
I've asked the site owner for permission to do so, if he responds with a
yes, I will.

James Newton TakeThisOuTjamesnewtonEraseMEspamspam_OUTgeocities.com phone:1-619-652-0593
http://techref.homepage.com NOW OPEN (R/O) TO NON-MEMBERS!
Members can add private/public comments/pages ($0 TANSTAAFL web hosting)

-----Original Message-----
From: Severson, Rob [RemoveMEseversonspamTakeThisOuTjged.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 08:19
To: 'jamesnewtonEraseMEspam.....efplus.com'; EraseMEPICLISTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: RE: TCP/IP, smallest server, blah blah


James,

Can you post or email the wwwpic.zip file? When I download the file it is
corrupt.

Thanks

2000\01\12@114923 by Dennis Gearon

flavicon
face
part 0 701 bytes
> James,
>
> Can you post or email the wwwpic.zip file? When I download the file it is
> corrupt.
>
> Thanks
>

I've attached the zip file. I don't know if the list truncates attachments.

--
________________________________________________________________
Dennis K. Gearon (Kegley)
Scientific Instrument Technician, School of EIT
Oregon Institute of Technology - One of USA's 100 Best College Buys
3201 Campus Drive
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Voice   1-541-885-1563
FAX     1-541-885-1689
email   RemoveMEgearondEraseMEspamEraseMEoit.edu
I am here only to be truly helpful
________________________________________________________________


Attachment converted: wonderland:wwwpic.zip (pZIP/pZIP) (000149D5)

2000\01\12@173544 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
>
> Byron A Jeff wrote:
> >
> > > I too am interested to know if anybody has crammed TCP/IP over PPP or
> > > SLIP into something as small as a 16F84.  Example code wanted.
> >
> > Personally I think it's too large a target. I plan to get a couple of my
> > students working on UDP/SLIP. I think it's doable in a small PIC because
> > UDP has none of TCP's overhead for flow control and sequencing.
>
> Sequencing is ameliorated by making sure each page, file, etc fits into
> one TCP packet (I believe max 1024 bytes) which is still substantial.

TCP packets can be up to 65536 bytes.

>
> Flow control is not too difficult if using PPP or SLIP, as the serial
> connection has hardware flow control.  Let the PPP or SLIP server do the
> buffering for you...

Not UART flow control, TCP flowcontrol.

BAJ

2000\01\12@193721 by quozl

flavicon
face
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 05:34:11PM -0500, Byron A Jeff wrote:
> TCP packets can be up to 65536 bytes.

TCP segments, that is.  ;-)

> Not UART flow control, TCP flowcontrol.

TCP flow control can be just ignored.  Packets get repeated.  Not nice,
but it is better than not communicating.  I think the RFC allows for
this for embedded devices.

--
James Cameron   RemoveMEquozlspam_OUTspamKILLspamus.netrek.org   http://quozl.us.netrek.org/

2000\01\12@200838 by quozl

flavicon
face
Attachment decoded fine.  Fascinating code.  Strange character set.
I might try getting it working.

Byron, for your interest the mail address of the ipic's author is listed
in the PIC2.ASM file as the source of the idea.

--
James Cameron   RemoveMEquozlTakeThisOuTspamspamus.netrek.org   http://quozl.us.netrek.org/

2000\01\13@011017 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   > Sequencing is ameliorated by making sure each page, file, etc fits into
   > one TCP packet (I believe max 1024 bytes) which is still substantial.

   TCP packets can be up to 65536 bytes.

Irrelevant, since "we" are sending the data.  Realistically, each packet
should be "not larger" than an ethernet packet (and *officially* not larger
than an IMP packet (576 bytes.))

The receiving side of a TCP connection gets to specify the maximum packet
size that it is willing to accept.  Expecting it to allow very large packets
will lead to an implementation that will not work very often...

BillW

2000\01\13@182341 by Richard Martin

picon face
I think the subject chip merely has to 'SLIP' (!) the info
packet to the local INET host who can (will?) fragment it
to suit a broader distr. So it is likely that _all_ messages in this
<implementation> are single packets. Simplifies TCP a bit<!>
What the size lim on SLIP?

R.Martin

William Chops Westfield wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2000\01\13@185535 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   I think the subject chip merely has to 'SLIP' (!) the info
   packet to the local INET host who can (will?) fragment it
   to suit a broader distr. So it is likely that _all_ messages in this
   <implementation> are single packets. Simplifies TCP a bit<!>

No.  The inet host can fragment a large IP *packet* into smaller fragments,
but it can't fragment a TCP *segment*.  If there was a single large TCP
segment fragmented into tiny IP packets, it would get reassembled on the
destination host BEFORE TCP got to look at it, and then TCP would claim
that it's too big.


   What the size limit on SLIP?

Originally, 1006.  Practically, 1500 or so (ie same size as an ethernet
packet.)  Fundamentally, 64k...

I would expect that there's quite a lot one could do within the confines of
536 bytes of payload.  In the absense of huge graphics and fancy HTML,
that's quite a bit of data for a small microcontroller to have to send in
the first place, right?  I think some sort of "eternal filesystem" to hold
the "pure data" part of the conversation is fundamental to TCP on very
small microcontrollers.  A serial eeprom/flash device would work fine.

BillW

2000\01\14@115817 by jamesnewton

picon face
I've taken the liberty of removing the other (crazy projects, biographical
info, etc...) links and adding a reference to Denis Petrov and his home
page.

You will find it at
http://www.piclist.com/petrovwwwpic/index.htm
and listed under
http://www.piclist.com/projects.htm
http://204.210.50.240/techref/default.asp?url=inet/embedded.htm

Please email me if you have questions, comments, requests or updates.

Thank you!

James Newton EraseMEjamesnewtonspamspamspamBeGonegeocities.com phone:1-619-652-0593
http://techref.homepage.com NOW OPEN (R/O) TO NON-MEMBERS!
Members can add private/public comments/pages ($0 TANSTAAFL web hosting)


{Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000 , 2001 only
- Today
- New search...