From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 3 13:02:20 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC77106566B for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 13:02:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@vereshagin.org) Received: from mx1.skyriver.ru (ns1.skyriver.ru [89.108.118.221]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32058FC12 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 13:02:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [109.163.238.48]) by mx1.skyriver.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D50635ABB for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 16:53:08 +0400 (MSK) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 16:52:13 +0400 From: Peter Vereshagin To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20120903125210.GA5387@external.screwed.box> References: <20120903030217.GA79339@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> <86wr0binyc.fsf@srvbsdfenssv.interne.associated-bears.org> <20120903072920.GB92658@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120903072920.GB92658@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> Organization: ' X-Face: 8T>{1owI$Byj]]a; ^G]kRf*dkq>E-3':F>4ODP[#X4s"dr?^b&2G@'3lukno]A1wvJ_L(~u 6>I2ra/<,j1%@C[LN=>p#_}RIV+#:KTszp-X$bQOj,K Subject: Re: Sharing COM ports to Windows hosts X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:02:20 -0000 Hello. 2012/09/03 14:29:20 +0700 Victor Sudakov => To freebsd-questions@freebsd.org : VS> > > There is a FreeBSD box with several RS232 ports. Can those ports be VS> > > accessed by Windows hosts over the network? Actually, does anyone VS> > > have a success story for such a scenario? VS> At least it has an example of an RFC 2217 client (COM port to TCP VS> redirector) in its README file. Thanks again, will look at it. >From what I remember the os/2 smb protocol implementation could share COM ports as easily as LPT ports for printers. I can't remind though if this was for 'printer-only' purposes e. g. output-only, supplied with a mandatory queueing facilities, etc., or not. Who knows if modern smb protocol implementations could do this, too. Depending on a task I think the most interactive user-friendly solution here is a minicom(s) each in its own ssh'ed jail(s). -- Peter Vereshagin (http://vereshagin.org) pgp: A0E26627