|
Posted by BQ on January 19, 2007, 6:14 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Jeff Jonas ha scritto:
> Do you subscribe to Circuit Cellar magazine?
> http://www.circuitcellar.com/
> They have articles (and advertisements) for embedded ethernet controllers,
> some with a TCP/IP stack built in or easily added to the microcode.
I'm giving a look at it, thanks!
> Zilog's ez80 has a lot of the on-chip since it's intended for
> interfacing embedded devices directly to ethernet running internet-protocol
> so it "plays well with others", such as allowing web servers
> on anything you want to give status and allow remote administration.
> If you have a home sharing unit (router/switch/WiFi/firewall)
> you already know the joy of just pointing your web browswer to its address
> to get status and administer the unit without any special software.
>
> A major reason against using non-standard protocols
> is that the packets can only be used locally.
> They can't be routed, so the device cannot be accessed by
> non-local devices via routers.
> Netware (IPX) and other protocols suffer the same fate:
> they're unrouteable, thus are local-only by definition.
> And you have to write ALL the software yourself
> for both sides of the connection.
>
>
Thank you for your thoughts Jeff.
I'm thinking about this issue.
In the case I will opt for a standard protocol, which transport-layer
protocol would you suggest in order to send commands, small amounts of
data and retrieve information (e.g. retrieve the temperature read by a
sensor, send a start / stop command to a device, etc)? For example, I
think that TFTP is not ideal for this kind of job.
Cheers,
Marco
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map