From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Wed May 3 14:40:01 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08774 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 14:40:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id NAA17898 for pilc-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 13:28:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17878 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 13:28:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id NAA04172; Wed, 3 May 2000 13:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marjan.fesb.hr(161.53.166.3) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma004074; Wed, 3 May 00 13:28:00 -0400 Received: from jurica (jurica.fesb.hr [161.53.166.43]) by marjan.fesb.hr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA28452; Wed, 3 May 2000 16:06:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <060601bfb509$c1e66c20$2ba635a1@fesb.hr> From: "SoftCOM Secretary" To: "SoftCOM Mailing List" Subject: Second Call for Papers Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 16:07:37 +0200 Organization: FESB, University of Split MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear All A Gentle Reminder * Kindly ignore this email if you have received this before. Please give * this remainder to your coleagues that might be interested. Thank you for your kind attention and cooperation. *********************************************************** The 8th IEEE International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer networks (SoftCOM 2000) will be held from October 11-14, 2000 aboard the luxury ship Marko Polo travelling on the route Split (Croatia) - Rijeka (Croatia) - Trieste (Italy) - Venice (Italy) - Dubrovnik (Croatia). The aim of the conference is to provide an international forum for experts to promote, share and discuss various issues and developments in the broad field of telecommunication and computer networks. We thus seek and solicit your contributions in the form of original/unpublished papers, tutorials, and topics for special sessions/panel discussions. More information on the scope of the conference and the guidelines for the submission of contributions can be obtained at this web site: http://www.fesb.hr/SoftCOM We look forward to your participation. Thank you. SoftCOM 2000 Organizing Committee From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Fri May 5 14:12:20 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25858 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:12:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id MAA23891 for pilc-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA23864 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id MAA23453; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sabre.sjf.novell.com(130.57.86.42) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma023423; Fri, 5 May 00 12:53:28 -0400 Received: (from mahdavi@localhost) by sabre.sjf.novell.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22447; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:53:27 -0700 Reply-To: mahdavi@novell.com To: pilc cc: Kacheong.Poon@Eng.Sun.COM Subject: Fwd: Re: [Tsvwg] Working Group last call for RTO draft From: Jamshid Mahdavi Date: 05 May 2000 09:53:27 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 59 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk The message below suggests a useful way of defining the maximum MSS for an LTN. Since the minimum RTO is defined in this I-D to be 1 second, it makes sense that the packet transmission time on an LTN should be no more than one second. So the maximum MSS which should be used is BW*1sec. For 9.6k, this means MSS no more than 1200 bytes. By and large these are probably larger MSS than people would choose anyway, but for very slow paths (esp. in the 1 kb/s range), a suitably low MSS would help avoid the problem which Kacheong describes below. --Jamshid PS. There might be a refinement of this calculation which would yield a higher MSS for very slow paths (based on the min pkt size of 40 bytes and the variance part of the computation) but my brain isn't quite in high enough gear to sort this all out yet. ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:41:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Kacheong Poon Reply-To: Kacheong Poon Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Working Group last call for RTO draft To: tsvwg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII One question about the draft. In section 2, (2.2) When the first RTT measurement R is made, the host MUST set SRTT <- R RTTVAR <- R/2 RTO <- SRTT + max (G, K*RTTVAR) where K = 4. Suppose it is a long thin network, and the first R is measured using a small packet. The next segment is in full MSS size. But the network is so "thin" that the segment takes longer than 2*R to transmit to the other end, the above MUST will probably cause a timeout because RTO is 3*R (assuming 2*R > G) and another R is needed for the ACK to get back to sender. Should the requirement be changed to something like "RTO MUST be set to a minimum of" the above calculation? K. Poon. kcpoon@eng.sun.com _______________________________________________ tsvwg mailing list tsvwg@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg ------- End of forwarded message ------- From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Mon May 8 11:07:00 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09258 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 11:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id JAA21147 for pilc-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 09:49:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA21088 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 09:49:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id JAA19062; Mon, 8 May 2000 09:49:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from percy.erg.abdn.ac.uk(139.133.204.86) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma018944; Mon, 8 May 00 09:48:50 -0400 Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (gresley.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.207.106]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e48Dmdv10295; Mon, 8 May 2000 14:48:39 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3916C5D6.64BDEC86@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:03:11 +0100 From: Dr G Fairhurst Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Organization: erg.abdn.ac.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pilc@grc.nasa.gov CC: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Subject: Comments:draft-ietf-pilc-link-design References: <200003171323.IAA22371@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by erg.abdn.ac.uk id e48Dmdv10295 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov id JAA21142 Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have the following comments, based on version two of the draft: >> Maximum Transmission Units .... I don't know if possibly it may be useful to note that the term “segments” is sometimes used interchangeably with “fragments”? >> Choosing the MTU... I feel it may be too strong to say that interactive response times should not exceed the well-known human factors limit of 100-200ms. I suggest you use the term “highly desirable”. Experience with satellite links suggest that although it is highly desirable for network paths to have delays less than this value, a larger value does **NOT** eliminate the usefulness of such paths for interactive applications. >> Framing on Connection-Oriented Subnetworks. The section uses the term “SDU” and “PDU”. The term SDU (defined as “Subnetwork Data unit”) is already used in some documents meaning “Service Data Unit”.I don’t think the two uses of SDU are (much) different, but suggest you use only PDU or SDU throughout. >> TCP Performance Characteristics In the following set of eqtns, the MSS term is wrong, since it refers only to the TCP layer: p=1-((1-BER)^MSS*8) BER*MSS*8<<1 p=BER*MSS*8 Actually this isn’t MSS it is is total link layer packet size (i.e. MSS+TCPH+IPH+all link layer headers and CRC). >> Quality of Service... The discussion doesn’t acknowledge the terminology of diffserv. >> Compression It is good to advocate payload compression at source, however there ***may*** still be some merits in link payload compression, when the payload is not already compressed and encryption is not used. Link compression is a practical solution for hosts which are unaware that the path includes a subnetwork which would benefit from compression. I wonder if this is important enough to mention? >> Security In addition to protecting the subnetwork itself (e.e. preventing unauthorized use), subnetwork security also protects the link from traffic analysis by a third party monitoring a wireless bearer. Best wishes, Gorry Fairhurst P.S. I've also tried a go at a better multicast session (see later email). From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Mon May 8 11:07:10 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09275 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 11:07:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id JAA21612 for pilc-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 09:51:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA21582 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 09:51:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id JAA19416; Mon, 8 May 2000 09:51:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from percy.erg.abdn.ac.uk(139.133.204.86) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma019355; Mon, 8 May 00 09:50:44 -0400 Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (gresley.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.207.106]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e48Doev10308; Mon, 8 May 2000 14:50:41 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3916C650.A1D4C8C6@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:05:14 +0100 From: Dr G Fairhurst Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Organization: erg.abdn.ac.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pilc@grc.nasa.gov CC: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Subject: Multicast:draft-ietf-pilc-link-design Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by erg.abdn.ac.uk id e48Doev10308 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov id JAA21591 Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I believe the current IP multicasting section is good, but it would benefit from more clearer explanation of what is required. I've tried to write something concisely, but may be others also have views? ----- IP multicasting is a network layer service which delivers a single received packet to one or more destinations based on the packet’s destination group address. IP multicast provides dynamic many-to-many connectivity between a set of senders (at least 1) and a group of receivers. The format of IP multicast packets is identical to that of unicast packets and is distinguished only by the use of a special class of destination address (class D) which denotes a specific multicast group. A point-to-point network may use unicast to transfer multicast packets. Unicast may also be used to send IP Multicast packets over shared networks by replicating each packet and sending a copy to a set of receivers, however it is more efficient for subnetworks to support multicast natively. The minimal requirement for native multicast is the support of a broadcast link. However, this simply delivers all packets to all receivers. Receivers who do not wish to receive the packets must discard them (in the driver/ IP forwarding software). Like unicast, IP multicast performance may be improved by enhancements to the link layer. There are three enhancements: A set of subnetwork addresses may be allocated to carry multicast IP packets. One address should be assigned to the all-nodes broadcast service. The assignment of IP multicast addresses to other subnetwork addresses may be deterministic (e.g. as used in Ethernet) or dynamic (as sometimes used in ATM). The number of subnetwork addresses used may be less than the number of active IP multicast sessions, since the same subnetwork address may be used to support multiple IP multicast addresses. The optimal number of subnetwork addresses is a function of the number of active multicast sessions, and the number of advertised multicast sessions. The IP receiver (driver or forwarding engine) removes IP multicast packets for groups which are not known to be active at the receiver. To minimise network processing, subnetwork receivers may request the network to filter unwanted received multicast packets (i.e Class D multicast addresses which the receiver has not requested to be forwarded). To ease implementation when a large number of subnetwork addresses are used, some implementors choose to forward/discard using hash functions. For multiple-hop subnetworks (i.e. where the subnetwork is formed from a set of active subnetwork devices, e.g. Ethernet switches or radio repeaters) addresses may be used by a subnetwork to construct a delivery tree. This optimises transmission resources by ensuring that packets are only delivered to parts of the subnetwork where they will not be subsequently filtered. A multicast routing/membership protocol will be required to identify which edge nodes in the subnetwork require packets for each subnetwork address. This information may then be used to configure appropriate egress filters on each out-going link within the subnetwork devices. N.B. 1) I believe that if the subnet can support native multicast in an efficient way, it should. N.B. 2) The current draft speaks of “links” at this section. Gorry Fairhurst From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Mon May 8 23:11:51 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA28202 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 23:11:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id WAA15401 for pilc-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 22:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA15382 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 22:04:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id WAA06769; Mon, 8 May 2000 22:04:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from clavin.cs.tamu.edu(128.194.130.106) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma006721; Mon, 8 May 00 22:03:52 -0400 Received: from photon.cs.tamu.edu (IDENT:1313@photon [128.194.134.1]) by cs.tamu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA19940; Mon, 8 May 2000 21:03:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (rajkumar@localhost) by photon.cs.tamu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28848; Mon, 8 May 2000 21:03:53 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: photon.cs.tamu.edu: rajkumar owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 21:03:53 -0500 (CDT) From: Rajkumar - Paulraj X-Sender: rajkumar@photon To: Dr G Fairhurst cc: pilc@grc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: Multicast:draft-ietf-pilc-link-design In-Reply-To: <3916C650.A1D4C8C6@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov id WAA15386 Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > A set of subnetwork addresses may be allocated to carry multicast IP > packets. One address should be assigned to the all-nodes broadcast > service. The assignment of IP multicast addresses to other subnetwork > addresses may be deterministic (e.g. as used in Ethernet) or dynamic (as > sometimes used in ATM). The number of subnetwork addresses used may be > less than the number of active IP multicast sessions, since the same > subnetwork address may be used to support multiple IP multicast > addresses. The optimal number of subnetwork addresses is a function of > the number of active multicast sessions, and the number of advertised > multicast sessions. > IMHO .. Using a single subnetwork address for multiple IP multicast addresses may introduce problems in building layer 2 forwarding trees due to overlap of the IP addressses when mapped to the subnetwork addresses. Because of this the IP addresses of the multicast sessions need to be carefully selected ( eg: as in ethernet addresses 224.0.0.1, 224.128.0.1 , 225.0.0.1, 225.128.0.1 , etc all map map to 01-00-5e-00-00-01 ). Ideally, I would say we should have unique mappings. The optimal number of subnetwork addresses really depends on the number of unique groups. For eg: we can have 100 sessions from one source to 100 groups OR we can have 100 sessions from 100 sources to 1 group. The requirements on the subnetwork addresses are quite different even though they have the same number of sessions. The above is true for ISM model. For the SSM model, the number of subnetwork addresses is probably a function of the number of advertised sessions & number of active sessions. Rajkumar > The IP receiver (driver or forwarding engine) removes IP multicast > packets for groups which are not known to be active at the receiver. To > minimise network processing, subnetwork receivers may request the > network to filter unwanted received multicast packets (i.e Class D > multicast addresses which the receiver has not requested to be > forwarded). To ease implementation when a large number of subnetwork > addresses are used, some implementors choose to forward/discard using > hash functions. > > For multiple-hop subnetworks (i.e. where the subnetwork is formed from a > set of active subnetwork devices, e.g. Ethernet switches or radio > repeaters) addresses may be used by a subnetwork to construct a delivery > tree. This optimises transmission resources by ensuring that packets are > only delivered to parts of the subnetwork where they will not be > subsequently filtered. A multicast routing/membership protocol will be > required to identify which edge nodes in the subnetwork require packets > for each subnetwork address. This information may then be used to > configure appropriate egress filters on each out-going link within the > subnetwork devices. > > > N.B. 1) I believe that if the subnet can support native multicast in an > efficient way, it should. > > N.B. 2) The current draft speaks of “links” at this section. > > Gorry Fairhurst > > From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Mon May 8 23:31:04 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA28611 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 23:31:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id WAA16472 for pilc-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 22:30:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA15399; Mon, 8 May 2000 22:04:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id WAA06777; Mon, 8 May 2000 22:04:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns.r-net.sk(193.58.193.10) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma006716; Mon, 8 May 00 22:03:52 -0400 Received: from jakab (Kosice55.r-net.sk [193.58.192.183]) by NS.r-net.sk (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id DAA24473; Tue, 9 May 2000 03:59:29 +0200 Message-ID: <004e01bfb95b$1e796d20$b7c03ac1@jakab> From: "jakab frantisek" To: Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: ATMTU 2000 in Slovakia Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 03:00:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0C1B_01BFB962.B44AD580" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0C1B_01BFB962.B44AD580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Accept my apologies if you receive multiple copies of this call. Please = forward to your colleagues. = ___________________________________________________________ The deadline for abstract submission is quickly = approaching (May) = ___________________________________________________________ =20 THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL ATM TECHNOLOGY USERS SYMPOSIUM ATMTU 2000 13 - 15 September 2000 Kosice, Slovakia =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dear colleagues, Enclosed is a Call for Papers for a special issue of The ATMTU 2000 = Symposium.=20 Detailed information about the Symposium and registration form 4you will = also fing on the Symposium web site: http://www.elfa.sk. The Symposium will be devoted to exchange of experiences in = implementation and operation of the broad-band networks based on the ATM technology, = presentation of=20 verified applications and presentation of the offered services. It will = promote the ATM=20 technology transfer between the producers and customers - users of the = ATM technology. In framework of the Symposium we are preparing an exhibition of new = products and=20 components of the ATM technology, applications, measurement equipment, = etc. The exhibition will be held in the same location as the Symposium. = Companies and institutions will have an opportunity to exhibit their products and = advertise them among the specialists and potential customers. Also, a special session will be = devoted to=20 introducing their products and applications (short lectures in duration = of approx. 10-20 min.).=20 In the plenary session we expect a presentation of the ambassadors of = the ATM Forum and also presentation of important business, academical and public = representative. Yours sincerely, Organising Committee ATMTU 2000 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Scope of the Symposium The Symposium will be devoted to the: a.. Presentation and sharing of experiences in the implementation and = operation = of the broad-band = networks based on ATM technologies=20 b.. Presentation of verified ATM based applications=20 c.. Presentation of the offered services=20 d.. Perspectives of the ATM based technologies=20 Aims of the Symposium a.. To support dissemination of experiences pursuant to ATM technology = utilisation=20 b.. To get an extensive base of future customers and users=20 c.. To support various forms of links among users and service = providers.=20 The Symposium will be open for the exhibition of new ATM products and = services. Symposium Structure and Suggested Topics for Papers Symposium will consist of plenary sessions and technical sessions. Plenary Session I.(1st day of the Symposium) Presentations of topics of general interest, e.g. building the = "information highways" = in the = international context, strategic aims of governmental institutions etc. = = =20 Plenary Session II. (2nd day of the Symposium) Presentations of the world leading a.. vendors=20 b.. operators=20 c.. investors=20 d.. integrators and=20 e.. users of the ATM technology.=20 Presentations of the implemented pilot projects and services in the ATM = based networks. Technical Sessions: Technical sessions will be held on the second day of the Symposium, in = parallel = with the Plenary Session = II. It is proposed for general audience and specialists from = = research, industry and academic institutions, intending to = present their experiences = and = recommendations from the field of ATM technology utilisation. The = session will = cover the following = topics:=20 a.. Comparison of ATM technologies from the view of their = implementation, protection = of investments = and further development=20 b.. Standardisation of the ATM technology=20 c.. Multimedia applications (videoconferencing etc.)=20 d.. Broadband services and quality of services=20 e.. Broadband networks management=20 f.. Security in the broadband networks=20 g.. Future of the ATM technology=20 Exhibition The Symposium will promote ATM technology transfer between producers and = users. = Producers and institutions will have the = opportunity to present new products, components, = = applications, measurement equipment, etc. The exhibition will be held on = same premises = as the Symposium. Symposium Languages Slovak, Czech and English are the official languages of the symposium.=20 Symposium Proceedings The proceedings will be published in time for the Symposium. Each = registered participant = will receive the = proceedings in both printed and electronic forms (CD). Contributions Authors intending to submit a paper are welcome to mail in 1 page: a.. (approx. 300 words) of abstract on A4 standard sheet=20 b.. borders 2,5 cm=20 c.. Times New Roman or similar font, 12 p.,=20 d.. in one of the symposium languages.=20 The abstract should be headed as follows: a.. Title of the paper=20 b.. Author's name(s)=20 c.. Affiliation=20 d.. Mailing address.=20 The deadline is 10 of May 2000.=20 If you need extension for few days, please let us know in advance - = = we will try to accomodate such requests. The Organising Committee will also accept abstracts processed by the "MS = Word" = text editor and mailed to the = Organising Committee by Internet. Authors of papers, = = selected for the presentation, will be mailed a pack with = instructions for full papers. = . Deadlines 1.. Acceptance of registration forms and abstracts and/or proposals to = exhibition 10 May 2000 2.. Notification of acceptance, rules for full paper preparation and = Second Call 30 May 2000 3.. Receipt of full paper and advanced registration 15 August 2000 4.. Last information and Final Program 25 August 2000=20 All deadlines are as per postmark. Venue Presentation hall and associated lecture halls at the Technical = University, Letna 9, Kosice, Slovak Republic. Optional Agenda On the third day of the Symposium one of the following optional programs = will be at your disposal: a.. either technical program - visit to see the advanced ATM solutions = b.. or a trip, according to the choice (the High Tatras or Tokaj vine = region) with the social program.=20 Registration Fee It is supposed that the registration fee will be in range of 290 USD. = The PhD. students presenting = their contributions will have = 30 % discount from the registration fee. The details will be announced in the Second Announcement. Information about Kosice Kosice, the metropolis of Eastern Slovakia, has more than 750 years rich = history. It has always been = a town of both national and = international significance. Kosice belongs to the most beautiful and = lovely = cities in Slovakia. There is an attractive, recently = renewed historical centre. Towering over the centre = is the = gothic Cathedral of St. Elizabeth, completed in 1508. In last decades Kosice quickly expanded and at the present there are = nearly 250 thousands of inhabitants. = It is the second largest city = in the Slovak Republic (after the capital - Bratislava) and is the = centre of the = industrial activities, business and commerce, = communications, civic admi-nistration, shopping, cultural = and = leisure activities for the whole Eastern Slovakia.=20 The first in-town university was established in 1657. At present there = are five universities. = Technical University of = Kosice, established in 1952, with over 11 500 students, consists of = eight faculties. = The Faculty of Electrical Engineering and = Informatics, established in 1969, is the leading institution of = = higher education in fields of electrical engineering and information = technologies. The education programs = are firmly linked with = research and scientific activities. Address and Contact ATMTU 2000 Symposium Secretariat Martina Atanasova elfa, s.r.o. Letna 9 042 00 Kosice, Slovak Republic Tel.:+421-95-62 538 39, 62 53202 Fax: +421-95-62 532 00 E-mail: elfa@elfa.sk, www.elfa.sk ------=_NextPart_000_0C1B_01BFB962.B44AD580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Accept my apologies if you receive multiple = copies of=20 this call. Please forward to your=20 colleagues.
       =20        =20 ___________________________________________________________=
       &nbs= p;            = ; =20 The deadline for abstract submission is quickly approaching=20 (May)
       &nbs= p;      =20 ___________________________________________________________=
 
          &nbs= p; =20 THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL ATM TECHNOLOGY USERS=20 SYMPOSIUM
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;    =20 ATMTU = 2000
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =         =20 13 - 15 September 2000
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;   Kosice,=20 Slovakia
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D

Dear colleagues,

Enclosed is a Call for Papers for a = special issue=20 of The ATMTU 2000 Symposium.

Detailed information about the = Symposium and=20 registration form 4you will  also fing
on the Symposium web site: http://www.elfa.sk.
The Symposium = will be=20 devoted to exchange of experiences in  implementation = and
operation of the broad-band = networks based=20 on the ATM technology, presentation of
verified applications and = presentation of the=20 offered services. It will promote the ATM
technology transfer between the = producers and=20 customers - users of the ATM technology.
In framework of the Symposium we are = preparing=20 an exhibition of new products and
components of the ATM technology, = applications,=20 measurement equipment, etc.
The exhibition will be held in the = same location=20 as the Symposium. Companies and
institutions will have an opportunity = to=20 exhibit their products and advertise them among
the specialists and potential = customers. Also, a=20 special session will be devoted to
introducing their products and = applications=20 (short lectures in duration of approx. 10-20 min.).
In the plenary session we expect a = presentation=20 of the ambassadors of the ATM Forum
and also presentation of important = business,=20 academical and public representative.
 
Yours sincerely,

Organising = Committee=20 ATMTU=20 2000
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
 
Scope of=20 the Symposium

The Symposium will = be devoted to=20 the:

  • Presentation and = sharing of=20 experiences in the implementation and operation          &nbs= p;            = ;       =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =     of=20 the broad-band networks based on ATM technologies=20
  • Presentation of = verified ATM=20 based applications=20
  • Presentation of = the offered=20 services=20
  • Perspectives of = the ATM based=20 technologies

Aims of the=20 Symposium

  • To support = dissemination of=20 experiences pursuant to ATM technology utilisation=20
  • To get an = extensive base of=20 future customers and users=20
  • To support = various forms of=20 links among users and service providers.

The Symposium will = be open for=20 the exhibition of new ATM products and services.

Symposium = Structure and=20 Suggested Topics for Papers

Symposium will = consist of=20 plenary sessions and technical sessions.

Plenary=20 Session I.(1st day=20 of the Symposium)

Presentations of = topics of=20 general interest, e.g. building the "information=20 highways"          =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;=20 in the international context, strategic aims of governmental = institutions=20 etc.           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;           =20

Plenary=20 Session II. (2nd day=20 of the Symposium)

Presentations of the = world=20 leading

  • vendors=20
  • operators=20
  • investors=20
  • integrators = and=20
  • users of the ATM=20 technology.

Presentations of the = implemented=20 pilot projects and services in the ATM based networks.

Technical=20 Sessions:

Technical sessions = will be held=20 on the second day of the Symposium, in parallel   =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             with the Plenary Session = II. It is=20 proposed for general audience and specialists from   =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20 research, industry and academic institutions, intending to present their = experiences           =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =     and=20 recommendations from the field of ATM technology utilisation. The = session will=20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             cover the = following=20 topics: 

  • Comparison of ATM = technologies from the view of their implementation, protection=20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20         of investments and further=20 development=20
  • Standardisation = of the ATM=20 technology=20
  • Multimedia = applications=20 (videoconferencing etc.)=20
  • Broadband = services and=20 quality of services=20
  • Broadband = networks=20 management=20
  • Security in the = broadband=20 networks=20
  • Future of the ATM = technology
Exhibition

The Symposium will = promote ATM=20 technology transfer between producers and users.   =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             Producers and=20 institutions will have the opportunity to present new products, = components,=20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             applications,=20 measurement equipment, etc. The exhibition will be held on same=20 premises         =    =20             =    =20               &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;          =20 as the Symposium.

Symposium=20 Languages

Slovak, Czech and = English are=20 the official languages of the symposium.

Symposium=20 Proceedings

The proceedings will = be=20 published in time for the Symposium. Each registered=20 participant           =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             will receive = the=20 proceedings in both printed and electronic forms (CD).

Contributions

Authors intending to = submit a=20 paper are welcome to mail in 1 page:

  • (approx. 300 = words) of=20 abstract on A4 standard sheet=20
  • borders 2,5 = cm=20
  • Times New Roman = or similar=20 font, 12 p.,=20
  • in one of the = symposium=20 languages.

The abstract should = be headed as=20 follows:

  • Title of the = paper=20
  • Author's = name(s)=20
  • Affiliation=20
  • Mailing = address.=20

The deadline is = 10=20 of May 2000.

If you need = extension=20 for few days,  please let us know in advance -    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =     we=20 will try to accomodate such = requests.

The Organising Committee will = also accept=20 abstracts processed by the "MS Word"    =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20     text editor and mailed to the Organising = Committee by=20 Internet. Authors of papers,        =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20 selected for the presentation, will be mailed a pack with instructions = for full=20 papers.           =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           =20 .

Deadlines
  1. Acceptance of = registration=20 forms and abstracts and/or proposals to exhibition

    10 May=20 2000
  2. Notification of = acceptance,=20 rules for full paper preparation and Second Call

    30 May=20 2000
  3. Receipt of full = paper and=20 advanced registration

    15 August 2000
  4. Last information = and Final=20 Program

    25 August 2000     
 
 All=20 deadlines are as per postmark.
Venue

Presentation hall and=20 associated lecture halls at the Technical University,
Letna 9, = Kosice, Slovak=20 Republic.

Optional=20 Agenda

On the third day of = the=20 Symposium one of the following optional programs will be at your=20 disposal:

  • either technical = program -=20 visit to see the advanced ATM solutions=20
  • or a trip, = according to the=20 choice (the High Tatras or Tokaj vine region) with the social program. =
Registration = Fee

It is supposed that = the=20 registration fee will be in range of 290 USD. The PhD. students=20 presenting           =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             their = contributions=20 will have 30 % discount from the registration fee.

The details will be = announced in=20 the Second Announcement.

Information = about=20 Kosice

Kosice, the = metropolis of=20 Eastern Slovakia, has more than 750 years rich history. It has always=20 been           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;  =20 a town of both national and international significance. Kosice belongs = to the=20 most beautiful and lovely    =      =20              =20             =20             =    =20             =    =20                = cities in=20 Slovakia. There is an attractive, recently renewed historical centre. = Towering=20 over the centre           =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             is the gothic = Cathedral=20 of St. Elizabeth, completed in 1508.

In last decades Kosice = quickly=20 expanded and at the present there are nearly 250 thousands of=20 inhabitants.           =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20     It is the second largest city in the Slovak Republic = (after=20 the capital - Bratislava) and is the centre of the   =20            =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20         industrial activities, business = and=20 commerce, communications, civic admi-nistration, shopping,=20 cultural           =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20         and leisure activities for the = whole=20 Eastern Slovakia.

The first in-town university was established = in 1657.=20 At present there are five universities.     =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20     Technical University of Kosice, established in 1952, = with=20 over 11 500 students, consists of eight faculties.    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20         The Faculty of Electrical = Engineering and=20 Informatics, established in 1969, is the leading institution=20 of            =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20 higher education in fields of electrical engineering and information=20 technologies. The education programs     =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20             =    =20         are firmly linked with research = and=20 scientific activities.

Address and=20 Contact
ATMTU = 2000=20 Symposium Secretariat
Martina Atanasova
elfa,=20 s.r.o.
Letna 9
042 00 Kosice, Slovak = Republic

Tel.:+421-95-62 538=20 39, 62 53202
Fax: +421-95-62 532 00
E-mail: elfa@elfa.sk, www.elfa.sk

------=_NextPart_000_0C1B_01BFB962.B44AD580-- From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Tue May 9 07:20:31 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14814 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 07:20:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id GAA06905 for pilc-outgoing; Tue, 9 May 2000 06:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA06888 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 06:10:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id GAA25090; Tue, 9 May 2000 06:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from percy.erg.abdn.ac.uk(139.133.204.86) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma024962; Tue, 9 May 00 06:09:33 -0400 Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (gresley.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.207.106]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e49A9Gv15450; Tue, 9 May 2000 11:09:17 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3917E3EB.F91AB57B@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 11:28:31 +0100 From: Dr G Fairhurst Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Organization: erg.abdn.ac.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rajkumar - Paulraj CC: pilc@grc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: Multicast:draft-ietf-pilc-link-design References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by erg.abdn.ac.uk id e49A9Gv15450 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov id GAA06892 Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks for your feedback. Please do see below: Rajkumar - Paulraj wrote: > > A set of subnetwork addresses may be allocated to carry multicast IP > > packets. One address should be assigned to the all-nodes broadcast > > service. The assignment of IP multicast addresses to other subnetwork > > addresses may be deterministic (e.g. as used in Ethernet) or dynamic (as > > sometimes used in ATM). The number of subnetwork addresses used may be > > less than the number of active IP multicast sessions, since the same > > subnetwork address may be used to support multiple IP multicast > > addresses. The optimal number of subnetwork addresses is a function of > > the number of active multicast sessions, and the number of advertised > > multicast sessions. > > > > IMHO .. > For a subnetwork involving multiple hops... > > Using a single subnetwork address for multiple IP multicast addresses > may introduce problems in building layer 2 forwarding trees due to > overlap of the IP addressses when mapped to the subnetwork addresses. > Because of this the IP addresses of the multicast sessions need > to be carefully selected ( eg: as in ethernet addresses > 224.0.0.1, 224.128.0.1 , 225.0.0.1, 225.128.0.1 , etc all map > map to 01-00-5e-00-00-01 ). > > Ideally, I would say we should have unique mappings. I tired to cover this in my final paragraph, but perhaps it wasn't clear. > The optimal number of subnetwork addresses really depends on > the number of unique groups. > > For eg: > > we can have 100 sessions from one source to 100 groups > > OR > > we can have 100 sessions from 100 sources to 1 group. > > The requirements on the subnetwork addresses are quite different > even though they have the same number of sessions. Yes, I wonder if this is a goog way to express this simply? > > The above is true for ISM model. > > For the SSM model, the number of subnetwork addresses is probably > a function of the number of advertised sessions & number > of active sessions. > > Rajkumar > Yes, I think what you say is true, but I wonder if "SHOULD" is a bit strong, I wanted to make sure that people unambiguously realised it would work - but that this was highly desirable, particularly when we have a shared link with a common medium between a set of nodes or a switched subnetwork where some intermediate node links two or more subnetwork areas. What do you think? > > > The IP receiver (driver or forwarding engine) removes IP multicast > > packets for groups which are not known to be active at the receiver. To > > minimise network processing, subnetwork receivers may request the > > network to filter unwanted received multicast packets (i.e Class D > > multicast addresses which the receiver has not requested to be > > forwarded). To ease implementation when a large number of subnetwork > > addresses are used, some implementors choose to forward/discard using > > hash functions. > > > > For multiple-hop subnetworks (i.e. where the subnetwork is formed from a > > set of active subnetwork devices, e.g. Ethernet switches or radio > > repeaters) addresses may be used by a subnetwork to construct a delivery > > tree. This optimises transmission resources by ensuring that packets are > > only delivered to parts of the subnetwork where they will not be > > subsequently filtered. A multicast routing/membership protocol will be > > required to identify which edge nodes in the subnetwork require packets > > for each subnetwork address. This information may then be used to > > configure appropriate egress filters on each out-going link within the > > subnetwork devices. > > > > > > N.B. 1) I believe that if the subnet can support native multicast in an > > efficient way, it should. > > > > N.B. 2) The current draft speaks of “links” at this section. > > > > Gorry Fairhurst > > > > From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Wed May 10 14:28:59 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01775 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 14:28:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id NAA08516 for pilc-outgoing; Wed, 10 May 2000 13:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08488 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 13:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id NAA00416; Wed, 10 May 2000 13:01:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se(194.237.142.110) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma000240; Wed, 10 May 00 13:00:30 -0400 Received: from fogerty.lmf.ericsson.se (fogerty.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.11.6]) by penguin.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.10.1/8.10.1/WIREfire-1.9) with ESMTP id e4AH0Qp10748 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 19:00:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lmf.ericsson.se (E0080C70AD5A4-udp300431.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.30.200]) by fogerty.lmf.ericsson.se (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22990 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 20:00:25 +0300 (EET DST) Message-ID: <3919957C.2772393A@lmf.ericsson.se> Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 19:59:40 +0300 From: Janne Peisa X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pilc@grc.nasa.gov Subject: LINK Draft: TCP Performance Characteristics Formulae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I have some problems trying to reproduce the example in "Analysis of Link Layer Effects on TCP Performance" using the formulae given in TCP performance Characteristics section. The text in current draft reads > For MSS, use 1000 bytes (remove the 40 bytes for TCP/IP headers, > which do not contribute to performance). > > For RTT, use 120 msec (80 msec for the Internet part, plus 20 msec > each way for the new wireless link). > > For p, use .01. For C, assume 1. > > The simple formula gives: > > BW = (1000 * 8 bits) / (.120 sec * sqrt(.01)) = 666 kbit/sec > > The more complex formula gives: > > BW = 402.9 kbit/sec First, using > > MSS 1 > BW = 0.93 --- ------- > RTT sqrt(p) > and plugging in MSS = 1000 bytes, RTT = 0.12 seconds and p=0.01 gives BW = 620 kbps, which is not exactly 666 kbps. The text mentions that "For C, assume 1.", though, and replacing the 0.93 with 1 indeed results in 666 kbps, so this is not a big deal. However, it would probably be better to use the formula given in the draft. Second, using > > MSS > BW = -------------------------------------------------------- > RTT*sqrt(1.33*p) + RTO*p*[1+32*p^2]*min[1,3*sqrt(.75*p)] > with the values given above and assuming that the RTO = 5*RTT as suggested in the text, gives BW = 519.4 kbps, which is quite far from the value calculated in the example (402.9). I checked that the formula is the same as in [PFTK98], so it's probably not simply a typo. Did I make a mistake in assuming RT0 = 5*RTT, or is the result in example just wrong? These are just minor issues, but being able to reproduce the results in the example would give link layer designers (read: me) some confidence in estimating the maximal TCP throughput on real life links. Best Regards, -- Janne Peisa mailto:Janne.Peisa@lmf.ericsson.se NomadicLab, Ericsson Research phone: +358 40 549 2873 Oy LM Ericsson Ab fax: +358 9 299 3247 02420 JORVAS Finland From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Wed May 10 18:48:06 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04608 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 18:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id RAA15443 for pilc-outgoing; Wed, 10 May 2000 17:39:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA15433 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 17:39:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id RAA13520; Wed, 10 May 2000 17:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sabre.sjf.novell.com(130.57.86.42) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma013449; Wed, 10 May 00 17:38:30 -0400 Received: (from mahdavi@localhost) by sabre.sjf.novell.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04181; Wed, 10 May 2000 14:38:23 -0700 Reply-To: mahdavi@novell.com To: Janne Peisa Cc: pilc@grc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: LINK Draft: TCP Performance Characteristics Formulae References: <3919957C.2772393A@lmf.ericsson.se> From: Jamshid Mahdavi Date: 10 May 2000 14:38:23 -0700 In-Reply-To: Janne Peisa's message of "Wed, 10 May 2000 19:59:40 +0300" Message-ID: Lines: 71 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Good catch. I'll send some suggested fixes to Phil next week. --Jamshid Janne Peisa writes: > Hi all, > > I have some problems trying to reproduce the example in "Analysis of > Link Layer Effects on TCP Performance" using the formulae given in TCP > performance Characteristics section. The text in current draft reads > > > For MSS, use 1000 bytes (remove the 40 bytes for TCP/IP headers, > > which do not contribute to performance). > > > > For RTT, use 120 msec (80 msec for the Internet part, plus 20 msec > > each way for the new wireless link). > > > > For p, use .01. For C, assume 1. > > > > The simple formula gives: > > > > BW = (1000 * 8 bits) / (.120 sec * sqrt(.01)) = 666 kbit/sec > > > > The more complex formula gives: > > > > BW = 402.9 kbit/sec > > > First, using > > > > > MSS 1 > > BW = 0.93 --- ------- > > RTT sqrt(p) > > > > and plugging in MSS = 1000 bytes, RTT = 0.12 seconds and p=0.01 gives BW > = 620 kbps, which is not exactly 666 kbps. The text mentions that "For > C, assume 1.", though, and replacing the 0.93 with 1 indeed results in > 666 kbps, so this is not a big deal. However, it would probably be > better to use the formula given in the draft. > > Second, using > > > > > MSS > > BW = -------------------------------------------------------- > > RTT*sqrt(1.33*p) + RTO*p*[1+32*p^2]*min[1,3*sqrt(.75*p)] > > > > with the values given above and assuming that the RTO = 5*RTT as > suggested in the text, gives BW = 519.4 kbps, which is quite far from > the value calculated in the example (402.9). I checked that the formula > is the same as in [PFTK98], so it's probably not simply a typo. Did I > make a mistake in assuming RT0 = 5*RTT, or is the result in example just > wrong? > > These are just minor issues, but being able to reproduce the results in > the example would give link layer designers (read: me) some confidence > in estimating the maximal TCP throughput on real life links. > > Best Regards, > > -- > Janne Peisa mailto:Janne.Peisa@lmf.ericsson.se > NomadicLab, Ericsson Research phone: +358 40 549 2873 > Oy LM Ericsson Ab fax: +358 9 299 3247 > 02420 JORVAS > Finland From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Wed May 17 10:16:53 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05426 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 10:16:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id IAA01368 for pilc-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 08:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA01334 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 08:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id IAA16865; Wed, 17 May 2000 08:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from melanieb.vtt.fi(130.188.1.12) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma016752; Wed, 17 May 00 08:51:42 -0400 Received: from elemail.ele.vtt.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by melanieb.vtt.fi (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17951 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 15:51:39 +0300 (EET DST) Received: from tko103.vttele (tko103 [130.188.92.203]) by elemail.ele.vtt.fi (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA08105 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 15:51:32 +0300 (EET DST) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 15:44:20 +0300 From: Zach Shelby X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.38e) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Zach Shelby Organization: VTT Electronics, Finland X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <0655.000517@vtt.fi> To: pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Subject: Comments/Contribution to PEP draft Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by melanieb.vtt.fi id PAA17951 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov id IAA01357 Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have not been active before, but I hope these comments on the PEP draft can be useful. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2.3: Some PEP implementations could operate both symmetrically and asymmetrically if a combination of techniques are used. For instanceimplementing extra ARQ protection in some instances, SNOOP in others, and IP header compression when appropriate. Chapter 3: ---------- Recommended addition: Forward Error Control In some cases wireless links may not provide sufficient protection against errors. These errors will either cause a packet to be dropped, or passed on with errors. One method for extra protection against errors is for a link layer PEP to add FEC on all outgoing packets, correcting more errors. The processing power for extra FEC may be questionable for high speed links or slow host machines. The protocol booster project has implemented this mehtod. - J.D.Bakker and R.Prasad, Efficient Protocols for a Radio Link in a Wireless Multimedia Environment. Proceedings IEEE fifth Symposium on Communications and Vehicular Technology in the Benelux, Enschede, The Netherlands, October 14-15, 1997. - Michele Zorzi, Prformance of FEC and ARQ Error Control on Bursty Channel under Delay Constraints. VTC Ottawa 1998. Recommended addition: Link layer ARQ For wireless links which do not provide the service of automatic retransmission it is possible for a PEP to add a symmetrical ARQ method for improving this type of link. - Same references as above. Possibly link layer ARQ and FEC could be considered in one section. Recommended addition: QoS Mapping (Section 3.5 does talk about supporting some QoS through multiplexing, this goes a step further) Many modern wireless protocols are beginning to support different QoS levels over the wireless medium. However the protocols available for use over these mediums do not automatically make use of this capability. Either the Integrated services or Diffserv methods could be supported for mapping packets to the appropriate underlying QoS levels of the wireless medium. This type of service can be provided by a PEP which IP packets marked with a type of service and makes appropriate configurations with an underlying interface. Section 4.4.3: Could someone clarify the term QoS transparency? Section 5.3.1: We recommend mentioning IEEE 802.11, HomeRF, Bluetooth, and Hiperlan as the best WLAN examples. Hope these are helpful, Zach Shelby ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Zach Shelby - Researcher Zach.Shelby@vtt.fi VTT Elektroncs Puh. +358 8 551 2164 (Office) Kaitoväylä 1, PL 1100 Fax +358 8 551 2320 90571 Oulu, Finland Mobile +358 40 7796297 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://paula.oulu.fi/~zdshelby Home: Yliopistokatu 14-707 90570 Oulu, Finland From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Wed May 17 16:48:35 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11168 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 16:48:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id PAA29125 for pilc-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 15:19:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA29099 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 15:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id PAA19903; Wed, 17 May 2000 15:19:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wally.packetvideo.com(209.101.176.195) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma019865; Wed, 17 May 00 15:19:33 -0400 Received: from misty.packtevideo.com (proxy.packetvideo.com [209.101.176.194]) by wally.packetvideo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61142C5AC for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 12:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by misty with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 17 May 2000 12:17:01 -0700 Message-ID: From: Weijun Jiang To: "'pilc@grc.nasa.gov'" Subject: TCP Over Wireless Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 12:17:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Hi, Does anyone know where I can find the draft of TCP Over Wireless document? thanks, weijun Weijun Jiang PacketVideo 10350 Science Center Dr. San Diego, CA 92121 (Office)858-320-2165 (Email)jiang@packetvideo.com From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Wed May 17 18:24:43 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11894 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 18:24:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id RAA13981 for pilc-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 17:12:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA13958 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 17:12:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id RAA08054; Wed, 17 May 2000 17:12:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unknown(213.0.67.204) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma007998; Wed, 17 May 00 17:12:03 -0400 Received: from ieee.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by papa.casa.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA03941; Wed, 17 May 2000 23:06:08 +0200 Message-ID: <392309C0.BA6B0CEA@ieee.org> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 23:06:08 +0200 From: Miguel Sanchez Reply-To: misan@disca.upv.es X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Weijun Jiang CC: "'pilc@grc.nasa.gov'" Subject: Re: TCP Over Wireless References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maybe you are looking for this document: http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fpeng-fcn-01.txt I hope so. Best, Miguel Sanchez Universidad Politecnica de Valencia (Spain) Weijun Jiang wrote: > Hi, > > Does anyone know where I can find the draft of TCP Over Wireless document? > > thanks, > > weijun > > Weijun Jiang > PacketVideo > 10350 Science Center Dr. > San Diego, CA 92121 > (Office)858-320-2165 > (Email)jiang@packetvideo.com From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Wed May 17 19:29:55 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12275 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 19:29:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id SAA20243 for pilc-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 18:31:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA20227 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 18:31:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id SAA18504; Wed, 17 May 2000 18:31:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unknown(208.217.183.161) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma018470; Wed, 17 May 00 18:31:05 -0400 Received: by atlconn1.panamsat.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Wed, 17 May 2000 18:31:01 -0400 Message-ID: <8046A317B5F4D21186610008C7EBB696F058F7@grnexch1.panamsat.com> From: "Falk, Aaron" To: "'Weijun Jiang '" Cc: "'Chris.Burke@motorola.com'" , "''pilc@grc.nasa.gov' '" Subject: RE: TCP Over Wireless Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 18:26:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Weijun- I think what you want is here: http://home.earthlink.net/~serotonin/HotTopicWireless.htm. As far as I know it hasn't been submitted as an Internet Draft. --aaron -----Original Message----- From: Weijun Jiang To: 'pilc@grc.nasa.gov' Sent: 5/17/00 3:17 PM Subject: TCP Over Wireless Hi, Does anyone know where I can find the draft of TCP Over Wireless document? thanks, weijun Weijun Jiang PacketVideo 10350 Science Center Dr. San Diego, CA 92121 (Office)858-320-2165 (Email)jiang@packetvideo.com From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Wed May 17 19:46:11 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12415 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 19:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id SAA20595 for pilc-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 18:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA20580 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 18:37:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id SAA19305; Wed, 17 May 2000 18:37:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from motgate2.mot.com(136.182.1.10) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma019280; Wed, 17 May 00 18:37:08 -0400 Received: [from mothost.mot.com (mothost.mot.com [129.188.137.101]) by motgate2.mot.com (motgate2 2.1) with ESMTP id PAA17367 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 15:37:01 -0700 (MST)] Received: [from il06exb01.corp.mot.com (il06exb01.corp.mot.com [199.5.78.83]) by mothost.mot.com (MOT-mothost 2.0) with ESMTP id PAA23966 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 15:37:01 -0700 (MST)] Received: by il06exb01.corp.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 17 May 2000 17:37:00 -0500 Message-ID: From: Burke Chris-CCB007 To: "'Falk, Aaron'" , "'Weijun Jiang '" Cc: "'Chris.Burke@motorola.com'" , "''pilc@grc.nasa.gov' '" Subject: RE: TCP Over Wireless Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 17:37:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk You may be looking for one of the drafts on the PILC working group web site, if not the one Aaron mentions: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html Chris Burke > -----Original Message----- > From: Falk, Aaron [SMTP:aaron@panamsat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:26 PM > To: 'Weijun Jiang ' > Cc: 'Chris.Burke@motorola.com'; ''pilc@grc.nasa.gov' ' > Subject: RE: TCP Over Wireless > > Weijun- > > I think what you want is here: > http://home.earthlink.net/~serotonin/HotTopicWireless.htm. > > As far as I know it hasn't been submitted as an Internet Draft. > > --aaron > > -----Original Message----- > From: Weijun Jiang > To: 'pilc@grc.nasa.gov' > Sent: 5/17/00 3:17 PM > Subject: TCP Over Wireless > > Hi, > > Does anyone know where I can find the draft of TCP Over Wireless > document? > > thanks, > > weijun > > Weijun Jiang > PacketVideo > 10350 Science Center Dr. > San Diego, CA 92121 > (Office)858-320-2165 > (Email)jiang@packetvideo.com From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Thu May 18 03:36:34 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29102 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 03:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id CAA12603 for pilc-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:25:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA12591 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:25:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id CAA10761; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.barak.net.il(206.49.94.213) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma010736; Thu, 18 May 00 02:25:13 -0400 Received: from ludis ([212.29.194.62]) by mail.barak.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA14256 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 09:24:52 +0300 (IDT) Reply-To: From: "Udi Segall" To: Subject: Remove Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:21:03 +0200 Message-ID: <000901bfc09a$1d092b60$44010164@ludis> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Remove Regards ----------------------------------------------------------- Udi Segall Director of Marketing, Native Networks 15 Gonen str Petah Tikva 49170 Israel Tel. +972 3 9210010 Ext. 225 Fax +972 3 9210080 Cel. +972 58 831800 udi@nativenetworks.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov [mailto:owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov]On Behalf Of Weijun Jiang Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 21:17 To: 'pilc@grc.nasa.gov' Subject: TCP Over Wireless Hi, Does anyone know where I can find the draft of TCP Over Wireless document? thanks, weijun Weijun Jiang PacketVideo 10350 Science Center Dr. San Diego, CA 92121 (Office)858-320-2165 (Email)jiang@packetvideo.com From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Thu May 18 04:26:41 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29635 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 04:26:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id DAA16792 for pilc-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 03:33:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA16780 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 03:33:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Dylan.Browne@support-externe.space.alcatel.fr Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id DAA17428; Thu, 18 May 2000 03:33:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mel.alcatel.fr(212.208.74.132) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma017387; Thu, 18 May 00 03:32:56 -0400 Received: from aifhs10.alcatel.fr (mailhub2.alcatel.fr [155.132.188.80]) by mel.alcatel.fr (ALCANET/SMTP) with ESMTP id IAA15101 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 08:23:27 +0200 Received: from vzmta01.netfr.alcatel.fr (vzmta01.netfr.alcatel.fr [155.132.210.38]) by aifhs10.alcatel.fr (ALCANET/SMTP2) with SMTP id JAA21668 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 09:32:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by vzmta01.netfr.alcatel.fr(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C12568E3.00292FC6 ; Thu, 18 May 2000 09:29:52 +0200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ALCATEL-SPACE To: pilc@grc.nasa.gov Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:33:31 +0200 Subject: Remove Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov id DAA16789 Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sorry for the unavoidable spam ALCATEL SPACE INDUSTRIES Direction des Systémes -- Europe*Star & SkyBridge Operations Engineering Tel : + 33 (0)5 34 35 42 86 E-Mail : Dylan.Browne@support-externe.space.alcatel.fr From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Thu May 18 12:08:09 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09703 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 12:08:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id KAA26790 for pilc-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 10:50:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA26751 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 10:50:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id KAA09936; Thu, 18 May 2000 10:50:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from snc5.spacebridge.com(206.191.3.227) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.0) id xma009892; Thu, 18 May 00 10:50:08 -0400 Received: from snc2.snc by snc5.spacebridge.com via smtpd (for seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov [198.118.142.12]) with SMTP; 18 May 2000 14:58:41 UT Received: by snc2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 18 May 2000 10:51:14 -0400 Message-ID: <535C51E37384D211BBE400A0C993250157D24C@snc2> From: Jun Huang To: pilc@grc.nasa.gov Subject: Remove Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:51:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Sorry...thanks. Jun Huang Senior Network Architect, System Research, SpaceBridge Networks, 115 Champlain, Hull, QC J8X 3R1, Canada Phone: (819) 7765664 ext 6004 Fax: (819) 776 4179 http://www.spacebridge.com