Generic Client Server Protocol
Hi Everybody, I have done some work on standardizing a protocol to be used for Client Server applications on the TCP So, it can also be used on Internet I have also written an ID on it It can be found at: http://wwwietforg/internet-drafts/draft-majumder-gcsp-application-02txt I know there may be several flaws in it so I want further comments from you experts PLease have a look at it and send me comments for improving it Thank you very much Anirban 2,000,000,000 Web Pages--you only need 1 Save time with My Lycos http://mylycoscom
RE: Generic Client Server Protocol
Hello Vinoo, I know many people is going to ask me this question...about CORBA...and for that I've included a note in the draft itself. Actually CORBA infrastructure gives a lot of overheads. This is another approach instead.Just think of a tool to which you will just provide the structure of information you like to interchange and it will generate the necessary, dedicated APIs for you to work with. Generic means upto the point of implementation.After implementing the client/server is no more generic.They are attached to that particular information model. regards, Anirban -- On Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:25:30 Vinoo Das (EHS) wrote: hi anirban, Tell me how is this thng different from CORBA and how do you think u will be using it in commercial platform and if u make the protocol generic it is going to be slow regards vinoo das -Original Message- From: Anirban Majumder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 3:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Generic Client Server Protocol Hi Everybody, I have done some work on standardizing a protocol to be used for Client Server applications on the TCP. So, it can also be used on Internet. I have also written an ID on it. It can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-majumder-gcsp-application-02.txt I know there may be several flaws in it so I want further comments from you experts. PLease have a look at it and send me comments for improving it. Thank you very much Anirban 2,000,000,000 Web Pages--you only need 1. Save time with My Lycos. http://my.lycos.com 2,000,000,000 Web Pages--you only need 1. Save time with My Lycos. http://my.lycos.com
RE: PPP
Brian (and anyone concerned), I humbly think that before practicing literature, you need to learn ABC. I'm not a researcher, not a great expert, not a guru : I'm a trainer and a consultant. (Well actually I AM a guru... for my wife and my children! But this is out of purpose... ;) I don't intend to develop new complex things but to explain the existing ones and make them understandable. My answer tried to respect the same basic level as Bill's question's. That's my job, teaching LAN WAN technologies (and Datacom in general). My humble experience led me to teach such matters in different steps. First you teach ABC, then you teach grammar, then you can teach literature. Trying to teach literature without preparation can create confusion. Sorry if I shocked you with such a basic view on PPP compared to OSI and TCP/IP. [May I recommend 2 basic books? A World of Protocols and Computer Networks...] One can read that PPP is a suite - a combination of several protocols. Among them : BCP, CHAP, LCP, MLP, PAP, PPPoE,... But seriously, does Bill care? And also a different Network Control Protocol for each network layer supported. If I had to go deeply into such details, my answer would have been too long - and out of purpose. Hope you understand the need for basic ABC and don't only tolerate complex literature. :) -Original Message- From: Brian Lloyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: lundi 4 mars 2002 17:49 To: TOMSON ERIC Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: PPP At 03:12 AM 3/4/2002, you wrote: I couldn't say it shorter and more clearly than Vint : PPP does NOT belong to the TCP/IP protocol suite. Other than it was designed for IP and the other stuff came along for the ride. PPP was a relatively early product of the IETF and specifically designed for IP. It's a Layer 2(*) protocol, intended to carry multiple Layer 3 protocols (like IP, IPX,...) over a point-to-point connection (like PSTN, ISDN,...). PPP succeeded SLIP by bringing extended features : SLIP could only encapsulate IP while PPP can encapsulate several protocols, PPP supports authentication while SLIP didn't, etc. Remember that TCP/IP only covers Layer 3 up to Layer 7 : it's designed to be implemented on existing lower layers (1 and 2) : LAN (Ethernet, Token Ring, Wireless Lans,...) or WAN (ISDN, ATM, Frame Relay,...). This is a common misconception. The lower layers (1 and 2) that you mention are often completely routable networks in and of themselves. You can even encapsulate IP within IP therefore IP is operating at layer 2 from that interpretation. Ethernet is regularly routed now (people call it switching but a rose by any other name ...). So all of these, including PPP, exist at layers 1-2 in the TCP/IP model (link, network, internetwork, transport, application) or layers 1-3b in the ISORM. This problem plagues developers working with PPP for the first time because they keep thinking in terms of PPP being only a link-layer protocol. If they would remember that PPP operates at the network layer then they would stop making stupid mistakes like a badly-designed L2TP. E.T. (*) Those layers always refer to the OSI model. Think of a Layer 2 or 3 or 4 Switch : it doesn't depend on the protocol suite above, so we always refer to the vendor- technology- protocol-independent OSI reference model. I love watching people slavishly adhere to this or that model of layering. Layering is a convenience, not a religion. (Actually, I got that backwards.) With the widespread use of encapsulating one networking or internetworking protocol in another, the whole concept of rigid layering goes out the window. The cry of, its a network layer; its a link layer, should be right up there with, its a dessert topping; its a floor wax! --- The basic answer ends here --- Now a small yet technical recall : when data comes from an application to be transported on a physical medium (copper cable, fiber optics, radio waves, infra-red,...), on its way from Layer 7 to Layer 1 it reaches IP (Layer 3) ISO spent a lot of time trying to sell the 7-layer model and then didn't know how to backtrack when they discovered that there were really two network layers when you interconnect dissimilar networks using an internetworking protocol. ATM, FR, Ethernet, etc., are all routable layer-3 protocols in their own regard so they opted to break layer three into three sublayers. (It is really three layers by their reckoning but ISO already had so much invested in the ISO Seven Layer Reference Model [tm] that they couldn't really switch to the ISO Nine Layer Reference Model Formerly Known As The Seven Layer Reference Model [tm].) that encapsulates it in a datagram/packet and specifies the destination network+host address. Then it's forwarded to PPP (Layer 2) that encapsulates it in a frame and specifies the way bits are organized to travel through the physical medium. Then it's forwarded to some Layer 1 technology that
Wireless LAN @ 53rd IETF
Hi, I didn't find where to book a wireless LAN card for the next IETF. I didn't attend to last two meetings but I did before and I rented it. Does anybody know whether this service is removed? Will there be wireless LAN? I couldn't even find a way to contact to CableWireless to ask them about the terminal room hosting... Cheers // Javier.
RE: PPP
At 03:12 AM 3/4/2002, you wrote: I couldn't say it shorter and more clearly than Vint : PPP does NOT belong to the TCP/IP protocol suite. Other than it was designed for IP and the other stuff came along for the ride. PPP was a relatively early product of the IETF and specifically designed for IP. It's a Layer 2(*) protocol, intended to carry multiple Layer 3 protocols (like IP, IPX,...) over a point-to-point connection (like PSTN, ISDN,...). PPP succeeded SLIP by bringing extended features : SLIP could only encapsulate IP while PPP can encapsulate several protocols, PPP supports authentication while SLIP didn't, etc. Remember that TCP/IP only covers Layer 3 up to Layer 7 : it's designed to be implemented on existing lower layers (1 and 2) : LAN (Ethernet, Token Ring, Wireless Lans,...) or WAN (ISDN, ATM, Frame Relay,...). This is a common misconception. The lower layers (1 and 2) that you mention are often completely routable networks in and of themselves. You can even encapsulate IP within IP therefore IP is operating at layer 2 from that interpretation. Ethernet is regularly routed now (people call it switching but a rose by any other name ...). So all of these, including PPP, exist at layers 1-2 in the TCP/IP model (link, network, internetwork, transport, application) or layers 1-3b in the ISORM. This problem plagues developers working with PPP for the first time because they keep thinking in terms of PPP being only a link-layer protocol. If they would remember that PPP operates at the network layer then they would stop making stupid mistakes like a badly-designed L2TP. E.T. (*) Those layers always refer to the OSI model. Think of a Layer 2 or 3 or 4 Switch : it doesn't depend on the protocol suite above, so we always refer to the vendor- technology- protocol-independent OSI reference model. I love watching people slavishly adhere to this or that model of layering. Layering is a convenience, not a religion. (Actually, I got that backwards.) With the widespread use of encapsulating one networking or internetworking protocol in another, the whole concept of rigid layering goes out the window. The cry of, its a network layer; its a link layer, should be right up there with, its a dessert topping; its a floor wax! --- The basic answer ends here --- Now a small yet technical recall : when data comes from an application to be transported on a physical medium (copper cable, fiber optics, radio waves, infra-red,...), on its way from Layer 7 to Layer 1 it reaches IP (Layer 3) ISO spent a lot of time trying to sell the 7-layer model and then didn't know how to backtrack when they discovered that there were really two network layers when you interconnect dissimilar networks using an internetworking protocol. ATM, FR, Ethernet, etc., are all routable layer-3 protocols in their own regard so they opted to break layer three into three sublayers. (It is really three layers by their reckoning but ISO already had so much invested in the ISO Seven Layer Reference Model [tm] that they couldn't really switch to the ISO Nine Layer Reference Model Formerly Known As The Seven Layer Reference Model [tm].) that encapsulates it in a datagram/packet and specifies the destination network+host address. Then it's forwarded to PPP (Layer 2) that encapsulates it in a frame and specifies the way bits are organized to travel through the physical medium. Then it's forwarded to some Layer 1 technology that converts the bits into a specific signal using a specific encoding scheme (V.90 on PSTN, I.430 on ISDN BRI,...) and finally reaches the physical medium to be physically transported through the network. To some extent you are right but your model needs to accommodate things like L2TP which tunnels traffic at layer 1|2 (depending on the model of the day) in a layer 4 (transport) protocol, or IP tunneled in IP. It is probably better to be able to keep the concept of duality in your mind, i.e. when you hold you tongue one way it looks like a link protocol but when you hold your tongue a different way it looks like a transport protocol. I suspect that something like this gave early physicists fits when they were faced with the duality of nature. So trying to be rigid in your categorization of any protocol is likely to cause you heartburn down the road (ask ISO). It is far better to understand where it makes sense to put interfaces and then perform the functions that need to be performed. --- The extended answer ends here --- -Original Message- From: vint cerf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] IP is encapsulated in PPP for all practical purposes. PPP can support multiple protocols on a single point to point link in the same way ethernet can support multiple protocols And, no, as the above quote shows, Vint did not say that PPP does not belong to the TCP/IP protocol suite. He just says that PPP usually encapsulates/transports IP datagrams as its
Re: Wireless LAN @ 53rd IETF
i believe one will be able to rent wireless cards there will be a wireless lan randy
Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational
322 ITU-T recognition at ISOC/IETF ITU-T Study Group Chairmen can authorize one or more members to attend an IETF meeting as an official ITU-T delegate speaking authoritatively on behalf of the Study Group (or a particular Rapporteur Group) This seems rather at odds with the tradition that IETF participants are individuals who represent their own technical judgement rather than that of some other organization I think it needs to be explicitly said that the opinions stated by such representatives are for information of the WG only and are not considered in determining WG consensus The last thing we need is to have delegates from other organizations given more consideration in IETF WGs than the technical judgement of individual IETF participants Keith
Re: PPP
whoa, it's in the TCP/IP suite, it's not. So let me get this straight. TCP and UDP are part of IP. TCP provides error sum UDP doesn't and is therefore faster than TCP. They are encapsulated in IP, which is put into the data bitstream of a PPP frame. Layer 1 is the physical layer, are bitstreams sent at that level. BTW I have 56K dial-up no ISDN or DSL. - Original Message - From: Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TOMSON ERIC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 11:49 AM Subject: RE: PPP At 03:12 AM 3/4/2002, you wrote: I couldn't say it shorter and more clearly than Vint : PPP does NOT belong to the TCP/IP protocol suite. Other than it was designed for IP and the other stuff came along for the ride. PPP was a relatively early product of the IETF and specifically designed for IP. It's a Layer 2(*) protocol, intended to carry multiple Layer 3 protocols (like IP, IPX,...) over a point-to-point connection (like PSTN, ISDN,...). PPP succeeded SLIP by bringing extended features : SLIP could only encapsulate IP while PPP can encapsulate several protocols, PPP supports authentication while SLIP didn't, etc. Remember that TCP/IP only covers Layer 3 up to Layer 7 : it's designed to be implemented on existing lower layers (1 and 2) : LAN (Ethernet, Token Ring, Wireless Lans,...) or WAN (ISDN, ATM, Frame Relay,...). This is a common misconception. The lower layers (1 and 2) that you mention are often completely routable networks in and of themselves. You can even encapsulate IP within IP therefore IP is operating at layer 2 from that interpretation. Ethernet is regularly routed now (people call it switching but a rose by any other name ...). So all of these, including PPP, exist at layers 1-2 in the TCP/IP model (link, network, internetwork, transport, application) or layers 1-3b in the ISORM. This problem plagues developers working with PPP for the first time because they keep thinking in terms of PPP being only a link-layer protocol. If they would remember that PPP operates at the network layer then they would stop making stupid mistakes like a badly-designed L2TP. E.T. (*) Those layers always refer to the OSI model. Think of a Layer 2 or 3 or 4 Switch : it doesn't depend on the protocol suite above, so we always refer to the vendor- technology- protocol-independent OSI reference model. I love watching people slavishly adhere to this or that model of layering. Layering is a convenience, not a religion. (Actually, I got that backwards.) With the widespread use of encapsulating one networking or internetworking protocol in another, the whole concept of rigid layering goes out the window. The cry of, its a network layer; its a link layer, should be right up there with, its a dessert topping; its a floor wax! --- The basic answer ends here --- Now a small yet technical recall : when data comes from an application to be transported on a physical medium (copper cable, fiber optics, radio waves, infra-red,...), on its way from Layer 7 to Layer 1 it reaches IP (Layer 3) ISO spent a lot of time trying to sell the 7-layer model and then didn't know how to backtrack when they discovered that there were really two network layers when you interconnect dissimilar networks using an internetworking protocol. ATM, FR, Ethernet, etc., are all routable layer-3 protocols in their own regard so they opted to break layer three into three sublayers. (It is really three layers by their reckoning but ISO already had so much invested in the ISO Seven Layer Reference Model [tm] that they couldn't really switch to the ISO Nine Layer Reference Model Formerly Known As The Seven Layer Reference Model [tm].) that encapsulates it in a datagram/packet and specifies the destination network+host address. Then it's forwarded to PPP (Layer 2) that encapsulates it in a frame and specifies the way bits are organized to travel through the physical medium. Then it's forwarded to some Layer 1 technology that converts the bits into a specific signal using a specific encoding scheme (V.90 on PSTN, I.430 on ISDN BRI,...) and finally reaches the physical medium to be physically transported through the network. To some extent you are right but your model needs to accommodate things like L2TP which tunnels traffic at layer 1|2 (depending on the model of the day) in a layer 4 (transport) protocol, or IP tunneled in IP. It is probably better to be able to keep the concept of duality in your mind, i.e. when you hold you tongue one way it looks like a link protocol but when you hold your tongue a different way it looks like a transport protocol. I suspect that something like this gave early physicists fits when they were faced with the duality of nature. So trying to be rigid in your categorization of any protocol is likely to cause you heartburn down the road (ask ISO). It is far better to understand where it makes sense to
Re: PPP
Here is a question that will tax your synapes to bursting point! How is PPP and TCP/IP libs wired together? Like, DO I (OSI 8) call TCP and it calls IP and down the chain till it spills over and gets real physical (OSI 1)? I am confused. At 10:02 AM 3/5/02 -0500, you wrote: whoa, it's in the TCP/IP suite, it's not. So let me get this straight. TCP and UDP are part of IP. TCP provides error sum UDP doesn't and is therefore faster than TCP. They are encapsulated in IP, which is put into the data bitstream of a PPP frame. Layer 1 is the physical layer, are bitstreams sent at that level. BTW I have 56K dial-up no ISDN or DSL. - Original Message -
