Louis Pouzin at INRIA coined the term datagram for use in his CIGALE/CYCLADES network
around 1974.
vint
At 07:17 PM 9/23/2002 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 06:46 PM 9/23/2002 -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
A packet is a unit of data carried in a packet network,
this just moves the question over
Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo Joe!
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Joe Touch wrote:
Without a dobut you are right, though I think the degree of difference is
awful small. Through hosts with root on switches or through wireless into
the mix and you are back to being roughly equivalent.
Hosts with root
Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo Joe!
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Joe Touch wrote:
root has no problem seeing adjacent UDP even on a switch. Just
overflow the arp cache or poison it.
That all presumes the switch doesn't detect this as an attack and
shutdown that link, which is an entirely reasonable
Kevin C. Almeroth wrote:
Multicast is necessarily a LOT weaker:
1) I can get a copy of packets by normal operation
(join a group). there is no equivalent for UDP,
notably for paths that aren't shared.
Again, not in all cases. You over-simplify the effectiveness of scoping.
Joe Touch wrote:
Gary E. Miller wrote:
...
Barring that, please name ONE switch, or cite ONE credible reference
source, where arpspoofing is prevented at the switch by any means short
of harcoding the MACs.
Practical != economical. Further, there are MACs which are hardcoded
(i.e. to
Matt Crawford wrote:
Barring that, please name ONE switch, or cite ONE credible reference
source, where arpspoofing is prevented at the switch by any means short
of harcoding the MACs.
Never mind, even hard-coding the MACs to the right ports doesn't
solve the problem. Eve on port X can keep
Date:Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:44:06 -0400 (EDT)
From:Donald Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Drafts expire in six months and get automatically removed
Eventually, which I think is relevant here. The draft in question
has passed its
Bill Cunningham wrote
If datagram and packet is the same, then what are frames?
TCP is carried by PPP frames. I'm not sure about APEX (rfc 3340)
This is not new, is it what we are referring to?
+---+--+--+
! # ! Layer name ! PDU !
As a trainer, I like to tell that the word DATAGRAM is built on the same basis as the
word TELEGRAM. It's actually a kind of telegram-of-data.
I also usually explain that Packet Switching relies on two different modes : DATAGRAM
vs VIRTUAL CIRCUITS. The datagram mode is mainly connectionless
I sometimes use the following table :
+---+--+--+
! # ! Layer name ! Protocol Data Unit !
+---+--+--+
! 7 ! Application ! Message !
! 6 ! Presentation ! Data !
! 5 ! Session ! Dialog
*
* There is no strict, formal, official distinction between packet or
* datagram.
Dave,
Section 1.3.3 of RFC 1122 (to which you were a significant
contributor) tried hard to get the definitions precise.
Bob Braden
At 05:44 PM 9/24/2002 +0200, TOMSON ERIC wrote:
Last, while I definitely, clearly prefer calling Layer 2 data units
FRAMES, I sometimes [over-]simplify the terminology of Layer 3 by making
the following distinction : a datagram is the data unit before
fragmentation ; a packet is a piece of a
At 04:24 PM 9/24/2002 +, Bob Braden wrote:
Section 1.3.3 of RFC 1122 (to which you were a significant
contributor) tried hard to get the definitions precise.
That is one of many such efforts. All of them are reasonable. (I think
the terminology relationships described by Eric Tomson are
on 9/24/2002 11:45 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
However the problem is not with a lack of documentation for the terms.
The problem is with community USE of the terms. The community is not
precise. The terms do not have universal, rigorous usage, the way
meter or kilogram do.
This is
At 12:38 PM 9/24/2002 -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
I've been wondering for a while if it wouldn't serve the community well
for one of the I* bodies to develop a dictionary for developing and
It might be interesting to have a BCP that precisely defines a set of terms
for specifications to cite
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Eric A. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: APEX
At 12:38 PM 9/24/2002 -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
I've been wondering for a while if it wouldn't serve the
--On Tuesday, 24 September, 2002 21:44 -0400 Bill Cunningham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been wondering for a while if it wouldn't serve the
community well for one of the I* bodies to develop a
dictionary for developing and
It might be interesting to have a BCP that precisely
17 matches
Mail list logo
