Mac68k Forums

Home


Welcome, Guest
Guest Settings
Help

Mac68k Forums » Development » Hardware Hacking

Thread: Localtalk bridge


Reply to this Thread Reply to this Thread Search Forum Search Forum Back to Thread List Back to Thread List

Permlink Replies: 144 - Pages: 10 [ Previous | 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ] - Last Post: Apr 16, 2018 12:39 AM Last Post By: fraveydank Threads: [ Previous | Next ]
bigmessowires


Posts: 217
Registered: 10/29/13
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 12, 2014 10:46 AM   in response to: dougg3 in response to: dougg3
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Awesome! Now you're ready to go into business in competition with Asante. :-)
MacTjaap


Posts: 14
Registered: 11/22/14
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 12, 2014 7:09 PM   in response to: bigmessowires in response to: bigmessowires
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
What a fantastic project is this!
You are really getting somewhere now. If there will be a test / prototype available I will definitely buy one.

I spend much of my time working with old Macintosh on LocalTalk and TCP/IP. This what I like most. To connect my old Macs if have several possibilities: a FastPath router, EtherWave PB, AsantéTalk, Dayna SCSI to Ethernet adapter, etc. But…
It could be a LocalTalk to Ethernet bridge and ….more. What about a MacIP router, AFPServer, etc? This would be enabling old Macs to connect to the Internet and AppleTalk networks at ease.

I tried to do my best over the years in this area and developed a virtual machine with out of the (virtual) box MacIP support, so people can connect their old mac’s to the Internet. You still need a LocalTalk bridge or a Mac with a network card and LocalTalk Bridge control panel. But is is a very easy way to have TCP/IP on an old Mac.

Read all about it at http://www.macip.net
Download the ova: http://www.macip.net/wp-content/uploads/macipgw-v2.0.ova

If I can contribute or test something please let me now. I will be reading these posts with much interest the coming time.
dougg3

Posts: 190
Registered: 8/13/12
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 12, 2014 10:02 PM   in response to: MacTjaap in response to: MacTjaap
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Hey, thanks MacTjaap!

I've seen your posts about making the MacIP virtual machine. Very nice work! Right now, I'm thinking initially I'm going to make a BeagleBone Black cape board with an SCC and the LPC1769 microcontroller. It will hook up to the UART pins available on the BBB's cape expansion headers. We should be able to put macipgw and netatalk (modified to work with the LocalTalk interface I've created) onto it. Your expertise with macipgw will be very valuable on this project! I started designing the PCB today.

In the future I might try to do more directly on the LPC1769 microcontroller, but it seems like doing it as a BBB cape will be the quickest and most reliable way to get something working.
bbraun


Posts: 493
Registered: 7/25/12
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 13, 2014 12:09 AM   in response to: MacTjaap in response to: MacTjaap
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Yeah, it seems like if you go the BBB cape route, a lot of mactjaap's work should port right over to the BBB linux environment.

Message was edited by: bbraun

Hmm, actually, have you double checked to make sure the linux appletalk kernel module is available on the BBB?
dougg3

Posts: 190
Registered: 8/13/12
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 13, 2014 12:50 AM   in response to: bbraun in response to: bbraun
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Attachment BBBCape.png (18.0 K)
Good point, it probably doesn't have AppleTalk by default. I should still be able to compile a custom kernel with a config that has AppleTalk support enabled. I'm envisioning supplying a pre-made bootable SD card image or something like that...maybe it even flashes the internal BBB flash so it doesn't depend on having an SD card inserted at all times.

Here's what it's looking like so far (yes, I know I don't have any decoupling caps, other support stuff, etc. done yet...just a broad overview of what it'll look like):



I'm considering changing the LPC1769 to something smaller and simpler. I picked it originally because I was going to eventually do Ethernet directly on the MCU, but for making a BBB cape it isn't really necessary, and the BBB idea is growing on me more and more. For my purposes, I just need enough RAM in the microcontroller to buffer incoming and outgoing packets (my current program is using about 16 KB of RAM). I think it would be reasonable to switch to a smaller Cortex-M0 device such as the LPC11U68.
MacTjaap


Posts: 14
Registered: 11/22/14
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 13, 2014 5:25 AM   in response to: bbraun in response to: bbraun
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
I will look into running MacIPgw on a Linux environment. I remember I switched to FreeBSD because of some compiling problems. It runs fine under FreeBSD 8.4. BeagleBoneBlack is by the way also supported by FreeBSD ( https://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/arm/BeagleBoneBlack )

But if I see what you are capable altogether on this forum this minor software problems can be solved easily. First things is to have a working model where this "ad on" software can run on.
dougg3

Posts: 190
Registered: 8/13/12
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 13, 2014 10:31 AM   in response to: MacTjaap in response to: MacTjaap
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Oh wow, for some reason I was mistakenly assuming that your VM ran Linux. That's good to know that the BBB can run FreeBSD. If macipgw is not designed to run under Linux, then maybe we should in fact use FreeBSD instead.

It looks like macipgw's documentation specifically mentions BSD everywhere. It might be some work to get Linux working with it if we go with Linux. I dunno...I would have to look at the code. The Linux kernel also has support for IP over DDP as both a client and server in the AppleTalk options, so I'll have to see exactly what it is usable for.
MacTjaap


Posts: 14
Registered: 11/22/14
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 13, 2014 1:00 PM   in response to: dougg3 in response to: dougg3
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
When I started with MacIPgw I wrote to the author, Steve about it. In 2013 he made it possible to compile it on Linux. I had some troubles with it and changed to FreeBSD on which it is somehow simpler to add AppleTalk etc. But you can see how to compile for Linux in the makefile.

http://sourceforge.net/p/macipgw/code/ci/master/tree/Makefile

So if the bridge will be build on a BBB with Linux it must be possible to get it working.
This is what Steve wrote about the Linux macipgw:

23-06-2013 22:40

I've commited a couple of changes that should make macipgw work on Linux. In my very limited testing, it compiles, starts up and registers on AppleTalk, and the routing table looks sane, but my emulator seems to be broken network wise, so I couldn't actually try and pass packets back and forth. I'll try to do that the next couple of nights.

https://sourceforge.net/p/macipgw/code/ci/2b571ba047dc829f75528e88303da67a10d0b537/

Now for the IP/routing setup: think of the Mac IP network as a seperate Ethernet that is hooked up to the computer running macipgw. Out of the box, the machines on AppleTalk should be able to talk to the machine running macipgw, but to talk to any other machine beyond that, including the Internet, requires proper IP routing set up on the machine running macipgw and everything else on your local network.

In my test setup, macipgw runs on my file server, which is also my internet router: on the first Ethernet interface, I have the cable modem, and a default route goes out to my ISP and the rest of the internet. My local LAN is hooked up to the second Ethernet port. macipgw now creates a third network (on tun0), and sets up the appropriate routes for the subnetwork selected, so my router knows which packets to send through tun0 to macipgw and the machines connected through it. Since all my other machines on my LAN send all traffic to my router, everything is fine.

Miles, if I understand your setup, you have macipgw running on a machine, and you have a separate Internet router. This complicates things: the macipgw machine knows how to talk to everything, but neither your router nor any other machine on your local network knows how to get to your IIGS. Let's assume this local network:

Router: 192.168.1.1
Fileserver: 192.168.1.2
Desktop: 192.168.1.3

On the fileserver, you also have macipgw running, with -n 192.168.1.1 192.168.2.1 255.255.255.0. This adds a second network:

Fileserver: 192.168.2.1
IIGS: 192.168.2.2

You should be able to ping, telnet, etc. between the IIGS and the fileserver, but probably not beyond. For the router and the desktop to be able to talk to the IIGS, you need to add routes for 192.168.2.0/24 via the fileserver at 192.168.1.2.

It might be sufficient to add that on the router, as it should redirect (reflect) packets it received for which it has an internal route. If and how you can add a router on your router depends on the model.

HTH,
Stefan


I will try to experiment around Chrismas time ( I have some spare time....) with the Linux setup for macIPgw...
But first you have to concentrate on the prototype! If we have that we will get macIPgw running on it for sure.
bigmessowires


Posts: 217
Registered: 10/29/13
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 13, 2014 1:08 PM   in response to: dougg3 in response to: dougg3
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
dougg3 wrote:
I'm considering changing the LPC1769 to something smaller and simpler. I picked it originally because I was going to eventually do Ethernet directly on the MCU, but for making a BBB cape it isn't really necessary, and the BBB idea is growing on me more and more. For my purposes, I just need enough RAM in the microcontroller to buffer incoming and outgoing packets (my current program is using about 16 KB of RAM). I think it would be reasonable to switch to a smaller Cortex-M0 device such as the LPC11U68.

Do you mean switching to a smaller microcontroller for your test prototype, or as the final design? I know it would be more work, but thinking down the road a little, wouldn't a final solution running entirely on the LPC1769 be a lot cheaper than something requiring a BBB? The BBB starts at $55 and has a bunch of capabilities you probably won't need here, then you'd have to add the cost of your cape and its components too. Something to think about, anyway...
dougg3

Posts: 190
Registered: 8/13/12
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 13, 2014 4:05 PM   in response to: bigmessowires in response to: bigmessowires
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
MacTjaap wrote:
In 2013 he made it possible to compile it on Linux.

Ah, nice! So maybe Linux isn't eliminated from the list of possibilities. Like you said, the important thing right now is to have the hardware ready. There's a good chance that we will have to hack netatalk and macipgw slightly anyway in order to get them to talk on my LocalTalk interface.

bigmessowires wrote:
Do you mean switching to a smaller microcontroller for your test prototype, or as the final design?

For now, just for this cape. If/when I do a standalone solution in the future (as you pointed out, it would be much less expensive), I will definitely do that with the LPC1769 and its built-in Ethernet controller. The 64-pin package of the LPC11U68 (which I am now using on the design) is a lot smaller and easier to fit onto the BeagleBone cape size. (Interestingly, the LPC11U68 also has a CRC generator in hardware, which would be helpful if I bit-bang the SDLC in the future...)

Speaking of standalone solutions, how in the world do you get MAC addresses? It looks to me like you have to get an assignment from the IEEE and the minimum is 4096 addresses for $625. AFAICT, microcontrollers don't come with assigned MAC addresses.
bigmessowires


Posts: 217
Registered: 10/29/13
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 13, 2014 6:02 PM   in response to: dougg3 in response to: dougg3
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
See the discussion here about obtaining a MAC address: http://www.microchip.com/forums/m601359.aspx

I think your best bet would to buy one of these EEPROMs from Microchip that come with a valid MAC address pre-programmed. They're only 25 cents. http://www.microchip.com/pagehandler/en-us/products/memory/serialEEPROM/MAC.html
bigmessowires


Posts: 217
Registered: 10/29/13
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 13, 2014 6:05 PM   in response to: dougg3 in response to: dougg3
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
dougg3 wrote:
It looks to me like you have to get an assignment from the IEEE and the minimum is 4096 addresses for $625.

By the way, that's cheap compared to getting a USB vendor ID: $5000!
techknight

Posts: 110
Registered: 10/13/12
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 13, 2014 6:26 PM   in response to: bigmessowires in response to: bigmessowires
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Or getting your FTDI chip knocked down to vendor ID 0000 by a driver update....
dougg3

Posts: 190
Registered: 8/13/12
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 13, 2014 6:40 PM   in response to: techknight in response to: techknight
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Oh wow, thanks BMOW! That was one thing that puzzled me. I should have known there would be a chip out there. Great find!

I guess I automatically assumed that the IEEE would be anal like the USB folks, who would do everything they could to prevent the manufacture/sale of such a chip. I used MCS Electronics to get a USB ID for my SIMM programmer. I guess MCS got a vendor ID, and then the USB folks changed the rules and said "You can't sell individual product IDs from your vendor ID to other people", but MCS is in the Netherlands, where they can't change rules after a product is sold. What a bunch of buttheads. I'm glad MCS is around to help hobbyists get a USB ID.
dougg3

Posts: 190
Registered: 8/13/12
Re: Localtalk bridge
Posted: Dec 14, 2014 12:59 AM   in response to: dougg3 in response to: dougg3
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Attachment BBBCapeTop.png (20.9 K)
Attachment BBBCapeBot.png (7.5 K)
Here's my board design so far. I'm going to sleep on it, but it is completely routed and passing OSH Park's DRC. I'm actually pretty proud of how the bottom layer is mostly ground fill!

Top:



Bottom:



Couple problems I already noticed: accidentally made the transceiver and SCC decoupling caps 0.01 uF instead of 0.1 uF. I got confused because the LPC11U68's datasheet asks to give both 0.1 and 0.01 to each VCC pin.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in all forums