RE: what is the meaning of "UDP Helper"?

Generaly 'UDP Helper' its used to name the host that process a specific broadcast UDP packet. The word become usual because you need to configure it on some equipment to address specific task of 'broadcast forwarding'. -> Case study: Imagine you have this scenario: central-site Lan <---> Route

RE: Carrier Class Gateway

> > Oh, I don't know, the flag for "G" ("I require a pilot") seems to describe > > us pretty well, also... > > Are you trying to imply we're rudderless??!!! No, no: Palm Pilots.. Maybe we could use 'A' ("D(r)iver below, I am undergoing a speed trial") for b@ke@ffs.

PWC, the next JPEG?

What do you think? will it be able to replace the existing JPEG image compression algorithm?   http://research.microsoft.com/signal/progressivewavelet.asp      Manuel Arronte. BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Arronte Garcia;Jose Manuel FN:Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia NICKNAME:Chepo, ChepoSpock ORG:Te

RE: Carrier Class Gateway

Why Waste time with calculations, It's an American Ship! Swing the 16" guns and blow the Bridge. Bush can call it routine and not apologize for it. -Original Message- From: Pat Holden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:13 PM To: Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia; [EMAI

RE: Carrier Class Gateway

> >However, those of us who choose to use asynchronous protocols can > >more easily make use of powerful, space saving message compression -- > > > > http://www.anbg.gov.au/flags/signal-meaning.html > > > >If there is ever an IETF held at sea, I nominate the flag for > >"Y - I am carrying mails

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

one would have to consider high tides during a full moon to get an accurate measurement. > I am also sorry about this but... > > I think all the calculation regarding height limit should be made based on > high tides; it is easier to know if a ship would be able to pass on high > tide or not, whe

RE: Carrier Class Gateway

Hmm, does this mean we need a BOF to determine if there is a need for a ShipsInTheDay protocol or if the ShipsInTheNight protocol would be adequate for the job (with a few extensions of course)? Are we sure that ATM would be desirable in this instance? Personally, I think this sounds like

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Manning writes: > > semantically confused. why would sailors be on the > bridge? (the one over the canal) > Right -- they should be using routers, not bridges. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

I am also sorry about this but... I think all the calculation regarding height limit should be made based on high tides; it is easier to know if a ship would be able to pass on high tide or not, when its the "sentsitive" time to let it pass, with it is higher tides... Manuel Arronte. - Or

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

> semantically confused. why would sailors be on the > bridge? (the one over the canal) > > Or is this a case of ShipsIntheNight I think we've now reached the point where what little sense was left in this thread has slipped silently away into the darkness. In memory of the old days on Usenet,

RE: Carrier Class Gateway

This would a collision avoidance protocol. For example, measure maximum height of the carrier class unit, compare to minimum height of the terrestrial routed physical path bridge. If the CCU exceeds the TRPPB, it must back off and wait until the next measurement cycle or until the measurement pr

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

> >However, those of us who choose to use asynchronous protocols can > >more easily make use of powerful, space saving message compression -- > > > > http://www.anbg.gov.au/flags/signal-meaning.html > > > >If there is ever an IETF held at sea, I nominate the flag for > >"Y - I am carrying mails"

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

semantically confused. why would sailors be on the bridge? (the one over the canal) Or is this a case of ShipsIntheNight % % .dark fiber optics..based on Dense Wavelength % Division Multiplexing.. layed 2 km below the surface % of the sea... oh factor in high/low tide ... % % ->

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

Not on the bridge, the need to cross UNDER it... M. - Original Message - From: "Bill Manning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dawson, Peter D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:25 P Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway > > semantically confused.

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

>However, those of us who choose to use asynchronous protocols can >more easily make use of powerful, space saving message compression -- > > http://www.anbg.gov.au/flags/signal-meaning.html > >If there is ever an IETF held at sea, I nominate the flag for >"Y - I am carrying mails" as a confere

RE: Carrier Class Gateway

> > > There's some discussion of Panama requirements in 'The New New Thing'. > > > Not just a lock, but there's a bridge to worry about; passing under it > > > at low tide is your height limit. > > > > i would imagine the problem would be at high, not low, tide. > oops. mea culpa. > > L. Sorry

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

>> what type of media do you propose to run ISBP over? > > Sailor-to-Sailor Relay Relay? Sounds like a synchronous protocol, requiring heavy use of real-time techniques such as semaphores -- http://www.anbg.gov.au/flags/semaphore.html If it were truly "carrier class" it would have larg

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

> > > Not just a lock, but there's a bridge to worry about; passing under it > > > at low tide is your height limit. > > > > i would imagine the problem would be at high, not low, tide. > > oops. mea culpa. Not at all. On a trip between oceans, waiting less than 12 hours for a favorable tide i

RE: Carrier Class Gateway

.dark fiber optics..based on Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing.. layed 2 km below the surface of the sea... oh factor in high/low tide ... ->-Original Message- ->From: Pat Holden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ->Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:05 PM ->To: Robert G. Ferrell; [EMAIL

RE: Carrier Class Gateway

Salt water. > -Original Message- > From: Pat Holden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 11:05 AM > To: Robert G. Ferrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway > > what type of media do you propose to run ISBP over? >

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

>And of *course*, you want the bridge and the ship to be using some sort >of IM Presence protocol so each knows the other is there This is a perfect application for the ISBP (Intraship Bridge Protocol)... RGF

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

>what type of media do you propose to run ISBP over? Sailor-to-Sailor Relay, or maybe a specialized version of avian carriers (RFC 1149 et al.) using albatrosses or seagulls. RGF

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

what type of media do you propose to run ISBP over? - Original Message - From: "Robert G. Ferrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:13 PM Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway > >And of *course*, you want the bridge and

Re: Carrier Class Gateway

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:44:25 CDT, "Robert G. Ferrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >There's some discussion of Panama requirements in 'The New New Thing'. > >Not just a lock, but there's a bridge to worry about; passing under it > >at low tide is your height limit. > > Ya know, if we wait long e

RE: Carrier Class Gateway

>There's some discussion of Panama requirements in 'The New New Thing'. >Not just a lock, but there's a bridge to worry about; passing under it >at low tide is your height limit. Ya know, if we wait long enough, I'll bet this thread may eventually work its way back to having something to do with

RE: Carrier Class Gateway

The New Jersey is a Battleship not a Carrier. The carriers are bigger. > -Original Message- > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 8:41 PM > To: Matt Crawford > Cc: Vijay; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway >

RE: ?μ?e±a°T

-Original Message- From: Seednet $S6'/+9q$l3x [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:05 AM To: Seednet9q$l3x7|-{ Subject: ?£g?e¡Óa¢XT ?O?¡±¡Â?1q?l3o !i 2001/04/24¢DX¢DZ !j