RE: Privacy (RE: Should IETF do more to fight computer crime?)

At 12:40 24.05.2000 +, Dawson, Peter D wrote: >So the "unverified accusation" ... should become "verifiable" and this >could only be possible if there is a code of ethics between noc/isp etc... >i.e just what I suggested in my earlier posting... RFC 2350 and draft-ietf-grip-isp-expectations, a

Configuration...

Hai , I am developing a configuration software which should assign an IP address for a network device which is connected to the network for the first time through my program . What is the procedure ? , should i use bootp or DHCP or ARP , please do advice me .In case I assign

RE: Configuration...

Hi, If its only IP address, use RARP mechanism to get the IP address (this requires a rarp server to be in place in the same network). RARP server can be enabled in the Linux server. If RARP fails(after some timeout), then go ahead to use Bootp to get the IP address. Regards M.Ravichandran --

RE: IETF *is* computer crime.

Mark Paton writes: > The IETF does a great job and does'nt deserve or > warrent this attack. The people who deserve it > are the politicians who are trying to implement > "laws" on the use of the InterNet, have a go at > them and leave this group alone. Hate to belabour a point that is probabl

48th IETF meeting in Pittsburgh, PA

Who is the host? Where can i find more info? Matt Morrisey

RE: Configuration...

At 11:10 25-05-00 , Ravichandran M wrote: >Hi, >If its only IP address, use RARP mechanism to get the IP address (this >requires a rarp server to be in place in the same network). RARP server can >be enabled in the Linux server. If RARP fails(after some timeout), then go >ahead to use Bootp to get

digital wrapper!

Hi: How about digital wrapper now?I want to know it? Where can I find the document about it? Thank you! qtl [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Privacy (RE: Should IETF do more to fight computer crime?)

>-Original Message- >From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 9:45 AM >To: Dawson, Peter D; 'IETF general mailing list' >Subject: RE: Privacy (RE: Should IETF do more to fight computer crime?) > > >At 12:40 24.05.2000 +, Dawson, Peter D wrote:

RE: Privacy (RE: Should IETF do more to fight computer crime?)

> Is there a GRIP online email archive ?? details about all ietf wgs are on the ietf web site, . grip's in particular is . randy

RE: Privacy (RE: Should IETF do more to fight computer crime?)

>-Original Message- >From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 1:55 PM >To: Dawson, Peter D >Cc: 'IETF general mailing list' >Subject: RE: Privacy (RE: Should IETF do more to fight computer crime?) > > >> Is there a GRIP online email archive ?? > >details

Average Ethernet packet length

> Hi, > > A recent thread suggested something interesting - an average Ethernet/IP > packet length of 500 bytes. Has there been any work done in the area of > finding average packet lengths, bandwidth usage, etc. of typical (read: > unknown) networks? Are there any "rules of thumb" values that

Storage over Ethernet/IP

I am seeking a few points of clarification:   1.  Fibre Channel folks have attempted to explain to me why TCP/IP could NEVER be a viable interconnect for block level storage operations.  They claim:   a.  TCP is too CPU intensive and creates too much latency for storage I/O operations.   b. 

Wimba uses ports 4382 and 5644

The asynchronous audio conferencing applet at www.wimba.com uses TCP ports 4382 and 5644. Sites wishing to explore Wimba will need to allow access for TCP transmissions on those ports. Those concerned regarding security issues should note that the signed applet has been ranked in the top 1%

Re: Storage over Ethernet/IP

On Thu, 25 May 2000, Jon William Toigo wrote: > I am seeking a few points of clarification: > > 1. Fibre Channel folks have attempted to explain to me why TCP/IP > could NEVER be a viable interconnect for block level storage > operations. They claim: > > a. TCP is too CPU intensive and creat

Re: Storage over Ethernet/IP

Jon, Original Message >> I am seeking a few points of clarification: >> >> 1. Fibre Channel folks have attempted to explain to me why TCP/IP could = >> NEVER be a viable interconnect for block level storage operations. They = >> claim: >> a. TCP is too CPU intensive and

Re: Storage over Ethernet/IP

Thanks for the feedback, Mssrs. Fisk and Nagle, I think a problem for IT folks who are hearing early statements about SANs based on GE has to do with an issue to which you both alluded. Specifically, what parameters -- bandwidth, throughput, latency, etc. -- must designers consider when evaluatin

RE: Average Ethernet packet length

Title: RE: Average Ethernet packet length I saw an article a while back that showed spikes at 64 bytes (TCP handshake, increased with web growth), 590 bytes (576 byte min mtu), and 1518 bytes (Ethernet max).  This was a few years old.  I don't know if it listed an average.  I'll try to dig it

Re: Average Ethernet packet length

In message , Timothy Behne writ es: > >> Hi, >> >> A recent thread suggested something interesting - an average Ethernet/IP >> packet length of 500 bytes. Has there been any work done in the area of >> finding average packet lengths, bandwidth usag

Re: Average Ethernet packet length

Also some good stats at www.caida.org - paul At 09:08 PM 05/25/2000 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > >> A recent thread suggested something interesting - an average Ethernet/IP > >> packet length of 500 bytes. Has there been any work done in the area of > >> finding average packet lengths, b

Re: Average Ethernet packet length

>There are no good, current studies on LAN behavior that I've seen. >There have been a number of papers on WAN behavior. The usual result >of those is that ~40-50% of packets are about 40-44 bytes, but most of >the bytes are carried by packets of ~500-576 or 1500 bytes. > > --St

Re: Storage over Ethernet/IP

At 22:52 25-05-00 , Jon William Toigo wrote: >c. The maximum throughput of a GE TCP/IP connection is 768 Mps, which is >too slow to support storage I/O operations. Provably false. In fact TCP throughput above 768 Mbps over 1518-byte GE has been demonstrated publicly in the past in several dif

Re: Storage over Ethernet/IP

On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:08:50 EDT, Jon William Toigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Put another way, when I design an aircraft, I know about lift, drag and > other engineering parameters and can plug them into calculations that will > enable me to design a wing to lift X number of pounds. When it co

Re: Average Ethernet packet length

< said: > There are no good, current studies on LAN behavior that I've seen. However, many LAN switches can provide this information to a management process. With high-speed networks, this may be the only way to get information on LAN behavior. For example, incoming packets on one interface

RE: Storage over Ethernet/IP

I too have heard these arguments. When I heard them I felt a sense of deja vu -- anyone remember when the conventional wisdom was that "voice will never run over IP?" In fact, most of the assertions below are fallacies or soon will become fallacies. The only real argument is about the exac