-Original Message-
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 12:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WAP - What A Problem...
> For some countries it is more feasible for people to
> use mobile technology than to try to put in place the
> fiber, an
> Do you mean that WAP is:
> - overhyped?
...
Rats. I thought he ment the bit about the frog genes gone awry.
Self-pollenating dino-phibs. Oh well, back to the data.
Cheers,
Eric
I was one of the people who got bumped from the DoubleTree to the Hilton.
When I called today to verify my reservation at the Hilton, I discovered
that there were _two_ Kenneth Hornstein's that have a reservation at
the Hilton; one with my address, and another one with a different Amex
number who
> But it would be a grave mistake to cease working on
> future developments while waiting for everyone to be
> able to share what we have now ...
It hasn't gotten as far as sharing. We don't even have the "old" stuff in
place and running, and already people want to replace it.
You know, I'd muc
> For some countries it is more feasible for people to
> use mobile technology than to try to put in place the
> fiber, and copper necessary to allow them to communicate
> using some of what might be called the more traditional
> methods.
If they are that lacking in mere wires, they probably aren
RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> At 16:15 29/06/00 , Joe Touch wrote:
>
> >DS appears to be better for large, flat spaces (largely 2-dimensional,
> >under 3 stories tall, since transcievers on the middle floor largely
> >cover the upper and lower).
> >
> >FH is better for more spherical spaces (largely
At 16:15 29/06/00 , Joe Touch wrote:
>DS appears to be better for large, flat spaces (largely 2-dimensional,
>under 3 stories tall, since transcievers on the middle floor largely
>cover the upper and lower).
>
>FH is better for more spherical spaces (largely 3-dimensional).
These optimisations d
Date:Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:29:15 +0200
From:"Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <007201bfe1e7$2b9b5b80$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I know it's not very sexy to drop the blue-sky toys, but doesn't anyone ever
| work on improving and democratizing existing in
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" wrote:
>
>Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:22:32 -0400
>From: RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Actually, IETF has made IEEE 802.11-DSSS the convention for wireless
>LANs at all IETF meetings for some time now. This has been supported
>at least at Oslo, DC, A
>Or you can use *one* bullet, and watch the other 99 devices get disconnected
>very quickly ;)
>
>For some reason, my manager hasn't approved this technique as a cost-cutting
>move - I'm not sure why... ;)
I think the ammo manufacturers have a pretty strong lobby.
RGF
Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP
=
Its very likely that within a year, almost all cellular phones will have BT in
them. The interference issues between 802.11 and BT are a problem. BT tends
to win in this battle. So, BT is something folks will probably need to learn
to live with.
begin:vcard
n:Neumiller;Phillip
tel;pager:[EMAIL
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Simpkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 2:04 PM
>
> This I can agree with, the next question that
> naturally follows then is is WAP the right protocol
> for a fixed wireless application, or are we talking
> about yet another s
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:11:29 EDT, John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Don't be silly. We can't kill people for that. We'll shoot the *devices*.
If 100 people buy offending devices, you use 100 bullets right away. And that
only solves the problem until they find a way to contact .Real
Randy Bush wrote:
> > OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting. What
> > will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices? AFAIK, they
> > operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices emit enough noise
> > to seriously hamper 802.11 operation!
>
>
Alan Simpkins wrote:
> This I can agree with, the next question that
> naturally follows then is is WAP the right protocol
> for a fixed wireless application,
I'm pretty sure it isn't--IIRC, fixed-wireless equipment gives
point-to-point links at something like T1 speed.
In addition, the fact th
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:22:32 -0400
From: RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Actually, IETF has made IEEE 802.11-DSSS the convention for wireless
LANs at all IETF meetings for some time now. This has been supported
at least at Oslo, DC, Adelaide, (and will be at Pittsburgh). It
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
crosoft.com>, Christian Huitema writes:
>OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting. What
>will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices? AFAIK, they
>operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices emit enough noise to
> OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting.
> What will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices?
> AFAIK, they operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices
> emit enough noise to seriously hamper 802.11 operation!
Right, that was why Dan brou
> OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting. What
> will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices? AFAIK, they
> operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices emit enough noise
> to seriously hamper 802.11 operation!
simple, we take them out and
OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting. What
will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices? AFAIK, they
operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices emit enough noise to
seriously hamper 802.11 operation!
Christian Huitema
This I can agree with, the next question that
naturally follows then is is WAP the right protocol
for a fixed wireless application, or are we talking
about yet another set of standards and protocols. I
would tend to
think that one set should work for both.
Regards, Alan
--- John Stracke <[EMAIL
Alan Simpkins wrote:
> For some countries it
> is more feasible for people to use mobile technology
But better still is fixed-wireless, which can deliver bandwidth
more cheaply, because you have more predictable signal
conditions. Unless you're talking about nomadic headers getting
online out i
At 09:54 29/06/00 , Dan Kohn wrote:
>I will bite regarding one issue near and dear to IETF hearts -- which is the
>seeming need to buy yet another 802.11 card for each IETF meeting. And yes,
>I am actually suggesting an approach that would require one more purchase:
Actually, IETF has m
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> I know it's not very sexy to drop the blue-sky toys, but doesn't anyone ever
> work on improving and democratizing existing infrastructure
Well, sure. Improving--look at MPLS. Democratizing--there used to be (maybe
still is) an annual effort called Net Day, where vol
At 18:29 +0200 29/06/00, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>I don't understand why so much effort is expended on things like WAP when
>99% of the real world still doesn't have any access at all to the Internet,
>much less wireless access. And even of those who do, most have such slow
>connections that eve
At 11:26 -0400 29/06/00, Taylor, Johnny wrote:
>Give me some back ground information and how they fit in the communication
>world! Then we can open the discussions!
How they might fit : depending on the definition of "communication world".
As far as I am concerned, toying with audio and video on
The new Compaq iPAQ H3630 Pocket PC
(http://www.compaq.co.uk/press/releases/2000/177.asp) this will sync with
other devices thanks to the new Bluetooth jacket thats been developed. Hmm
nice Shiny !
http://www.compaq.co.uk/products/handheld/pocketpc/
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [m
I would tend to disagree, working for a
communications
company that specializes in working with
multinationals
and dealing with the associated infrastrucures in
foriegn countries I have found that in many countries
it is not financially feasible, nor geagraphically
feasible to try to create the
I don't understand why so much effort is expended on things like WAP when
99% of the real world still doesn't have any access at all to the Internet,
much less wireless access. And even of those who do, most have such slow
connections that even download a simple test page is an ordeal.
I know it
Dan Kohn wrote:
>
> I will bite regarding one issue near and dear to IETF hearts -- which is the
> seeming need to buy yet another 802.11 card for each IETF meeting. And yes,
> I am actually suggesting an approach that would require one more purchase:
>
> I was at Bluetooth Congress in Europe
Give me some back ground information and how they fit in the communication
world! Then we can open the discussions!
-Original Message-
From: Parkinson, Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 10:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bluetooth
Hi folks
I will bite regarding one issue near and dear to IETF hearts -- which is the
seeming need to buy yet another 802.11 card for each IETF meeting. And yes,
I am actually suggesting an approach that would require one more purchase:
I was at Bluetooth Congress in Europe this month (which sounds bette
> I will bite regarding one issue near and dear to IETF hearts -- which is the
> seeming need to buy yet another 802.11 card for each IETF meeting.
btw, those daze are over, at least for the moment.
from the current version of draft-ymbk-termroom-op-03.txt,
2.5 Wireless LAN
...
There isn't a theoretical limit of 11 Mbps on 2.4 GHz. There are already
higher speed Ethernet (although not 802.11) that operate on that
spectrum. 30 Mbps is the fastest Ethernet on 2.4 GHz in commercial
production right now. The reason why the bandwidth is 11Mbps/6Mbps is
the chipset, not the fr
to me, the most salient difference between bluetooth and 802.11 is the
addressing. with a three bit address, i see bluetooth as a viable
competitor for infrared ports.
randy
a technical discussion worth reading is at
http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MikeBanahan/MikeBanahan1.html
it would seeem (as i've suspected for a while) that the community in
charge of this development has the same problem as the guy who built
jurassic park - they haev no discipline, or underst
36 matches
Mail list logo
