Henning Schulzrinne [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> writes
>
> In looking in multimedia-related patents, I'm also utterly
> amazed by the
> complete lack of citation of published technical articles or related
> work (RFCs, Internet drafts, etc.). The problem with many patents is
> that if submitted as a tec
> If you are using a GSM 900/1800 network for internet access
> what are the
> optimal bandwidth qualities, and what are the bandwidth qualities of
> existing UMTS networks?
>
I don't know if I really understand your questions. If you connect with
appropriate modem/device you should be able
Title: MPLS and Private Network
David
Wang writes:
A company consists of 2 remotely
separated sites, A and B. A leased T1 line connects the networks on these 2
sites together. We generally call the company's network a private network
since the connection between the 2 sites are priv
In his previous mail, Thomas Narten writes:
>
>
> Now, consider someone in the process of deploying massive numbers of
> devices (100's of millions) together with the infrastructure to
> support them (e.g., wireless). With IPv4, they face not only the
> necessity of using NAT to get to outside
Mohsen Banan,
I tried hard to agree what you said - but many inaccuracies and
assumptions made in the article made my task so hard that I had to
finally give up reading it. Having spent last several years in the
wireless industry, and also having written some "not-so-open" as you
say, but widely
Mohsen writes:
> Brijesh> PS: By the way, ReFLEX is perfectly fine for two
> way messaging
> Brijesh> applications.
>
> No.
>
> ReFLEX is not perfectly fine.
>
> It is not IP based.
Hi Mohsen,
What kind of argument is this?
If it is not IP based it is not good ! This is an emotional respon
Keith Moore writes:
> -Original Message-
>
>
> WAP might evolve into something more useful, but I don't see
> how it will
> replace IP in any sense.
One is an architecture for supporting application on diverse wireless
systems, and other is a network layer packet transport mechanism. Tw
There were quite lot of responses to my mail on this topic so here is
what I have to say. It is hard to defend the WAP as only possible
solution or the most elegant solution for any one. Though in the past
few years I spent quite lot of time thinking about how to make data
applications run with l
Chuck writes,
> It's my understanding that disturbances in The Force
> were actually routed using an ancient precursor to IP.
>
I don't know about it, but the myth goes that ET communicated with his
folks using IP :-). The captured packet trace is
"UndecodableDatalink:IPheader:TCPheader:"ET go
> -Original Message-
> The networks that you have mentioned above were in place before IP's
> power became clear. That is a legitimate excuse for their non IP
> nature. I would say the knee of the curve was in 1992.
>
> ReFLEX on the other hand can not use that excuse because it came
afte
Vernon Schryver writes
> -Original Message-
> > From: Mohsen BANAN-Public <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > ...
> > There is a genuine need for a reliable efficient transport that
> > accommodates *short* and *occasional* exchanges.
> >
> > There are many occasions where UDP is too little and
> -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
Bob Braden writes:
> -Original Message-
>
> Jon Postel would have said: If it speaks IP (UDP/TCP are not
> necessary), then it's Internet, else not.
I will add a bit to this discussion.
1. A WAP phone without an IP address is not an Internet device. And,
no one claims so.
2. A WAP dev
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 10:47 PM
> I do however think that, given the tendency of various providers
> these days to violate the internet protocol specifications and
> erode the ability of applications to ru
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> If IETF makes it clear that AOL is not an ISP, it will commercially
> motivate AOL to be an ISP.
Oh really - it is that simple!
Guess who is better known in masses - IETF or AOL :-).
Cheers,
--brijesh
Ennov
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > It is akin to standardizing on what kind of light can come in your
> > neighbourhood.
>
> properly done, and with no adjectives or judgement spin, it could be
a
> taxonomy of what kinds of light are known. this might
> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Mahadevan Iyer writes:
>
> > At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open
> > network like the Internet to control critical matter=
> > of-life-and-death public infrastructure like power
> > systems. Wh
James,
We have gone through WAP v/s non-WAP threads several times on this
list. Let us hope this does not become another meaningless thread with
little technical merits in the arguments.
What is the use of criticizing a technology? If it is not good for a
purpose, or only the second best, it wil
> -Original Message-
> From: John Day [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> >No. it's the world's biggest NAT, and NAT *breaks the end-to-end
> >model of IP*.
>
> Well, there is a big difference between WAP's breaking the e2e model
> and i-mode. WAP does an application gateway and uses no Inte
> -Original Message-
> From: John Day [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> >Who cares what protocol a device runs as long as it delivers the
> >application that satisfies its intended users? Most subscribers
> >couldn't care less if i-mode used CLNP and TP4 instead of IP and
TCP.
> >i-mode is in
Why would someone like to preserve some thing that has been found to
be not worth publishing as an RFC? What is next? Click on XX for paper
published in Sept 2000 of Issue of IEEE Transactions on
Communications, and click on YY for papers evaluated and rejected for
Sept 2000 Issue of IEEE Transac
Title: RE: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
Anthony,
May be you can, but many of us who join IETF list would like to only read something that is related to the charter of the list. My friend, you are supporting the wrong person. The IETF list should not be treated as the "
Title: RE: Splitting the IETF-Announce list?
Why is it a good idea? That's what mail filters are for. With filters, you can create as many folders as you like, and treat them as separate lists. You can even auto delete the messages that you are not interested in.
IETF Announce is just fine-
23 matches
Mail list logo
