* From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 27 17:29:10 2002
* X-Authentication-Warning: ietf.org: majordom set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using -f
* From: Bill Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject: TCP/IP Terms
* Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name=rfc1456.htm
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: N92Gls13b46QT2
PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMCBUcmFuc2l0aW9u
YWwvL0VOIj4NCjxIVE1MPg0KPEhFQUQ+DQoNCiAgPCEtLSBDb252ZXJ0ZWQgYnkgQXNjVG9I
At 09:43 AM 9/28/2002 -0700, Bob Braden wrote:
[Why] do we have to do this all over again?
Bob, perhaps the right model is to start with that text and break it out to
a separate document, for independent treatment and citation. (The
precedent is ABNF.)
There are two justifications for doing
Noel;
From: Caitlin Bestler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Given the source interface, the *meaning* of an IP header is not
supposed to be dependent on the routing tables. ..
By contrast, the meaning of an ATM circuit is dependent on the context
in which it was established.
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:37:33 PDT, Dave Crocker said:
particular set of protocols. The current context of the terms is tied to
the TCP/IP suite, rather than claiming to be generic to all data networking.
That's a feature, not a bug.
We're the *INTERNET* Engineering Task Force. The few
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 06:20:59 +0859, Masataka Ohta said:
RSVP establishes the per-flow state before the packets can flow.
It is just a minor engineering decision to allow optional circuit
switched service over a best-effort-capable network.
1) I wasn't aware that RSVP caused packets to be
Lets just get some FACTS straight out
On 9/28/02 3:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 06:20:59 +0859, Masataka Ohta said:
RSVP establishes the per-flow state before the packets can flow.
I missed Ohta Son's original post, thanks to Valdis for catching
At 06:15 PM 9/28/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're the *INTERNET* Engineering Task Force. The few places where traffic
ABNF has larger application. There is nothing about it that is specific to
the TCP/IP suite.
The same potential exists for an effort to produce an independent
The terms can be TCP/IP layer dependant. For example, rfc 1122 says a
datagram is a connectionless protocol if I'm correct. Fine. UDP is at
transport layer, IP and ICMP is at Internet layer. IP is called datagram.
This can get confusing. Of course there is potential in defining layer
dependant
Lixia;
RSVP establishes the per-flow state before the packets can flow.
I missed Ohta Son's original post, thanks to Valdis for catching this
incorrect statement.
IP packets can flow anytime.
Fixing your statement:
IP packets can be forwarded anytime.
To say flow on packets
Valdis;
RSVP establishes the per-flow state before the packets can flow.
It is just a minor engineering decision to allow optional circuit
switched service over a best-effort-capable network.
1) I wasn't aware that RSVP caused packets to be routed according to
a flow ID contained in
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:11:13 +0859, Masataka Ohta said:
In this thread, as Noel said:
: It's easy to imagine an ATM-like system
: in which circuit ID's are global in scope.
the circuit ID does not neccessarily imply special routing.
If you're not routing based on circuit ID, why are you
*
* The terms can be TCP/IP layer dependant. For example, rfc 1122 says a
* datagram is a connectionless protocol if I'm correct. Fine. UDP is at
* transport layer, IP and ICMP is at Internet layer. IP is called datagram.
Unnh, UDP stands for User Datagram Protocol.
But it is not
Unnh, UDP stands for User Datagram Protocol.
But it is not particularly confusing.
Bob Braden
User Datagram protocol is pretty self explanatory as far as datagrams go.
But there's so many protocols out there now some like PPTP that are
proprietary. I've read several books on TCP/IP and
14 matches
Mail list logo
