RE: WAP and IP

At 15:21 26/06/00 , Vernon Schryver wrote:

  - persistently, unbendingly claiming that 14000 bit/sec is a bit rate 
   that is radically lower than anything ever before used for TCP/IP.


         Those of us who have run voice over IP over 9600 bps HF radio
find the above claim particularly amusing.  (By the way, there
are deployed uses of voice over IP over 9600 bps HF radio today.  :-)

Ran
rja(_at_)inet(_dot_)org

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
RE: WAP and IP, (continued) RE: WAP and IP, Mohsen BANAN-Public RE: WAP and IP, Patrik Fältström Now: A Lesser IESG Is A Better IETF -- Was: RE: WAP and IP, Mohsen BANAN-Public ESRO (RE: WAP and IP), Harald Tveit Alvestrand Re: ESRO (RE: WAP and IP), Mohsen BANAN-Public Re: ESRO (RE: WAP and IP), Harald Tveit Alvestrand Re: WAP and IP, Mark Atwood RE: WAP and IP, Vernon Schryver RE: WAP and IP, Brijesh Kumar RE: WAP and IP, Vernon Schryver RE: WAP and IP, RJ Atkinson <= Re: WAP and IP, Marcus Leech Re: WAP and IP, Randy Bush Re: WAP and IP, Frank Kastenholz RE: WAP and IP, Dan Kohn

Previous by Date:	RE: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP), Dan Kohn
Next by Date:	SONET MIB Standards?, Shivendra Kumar
Previous by Thread:	RE: WAP and IP, Vernon Schryver
Next by Thread:	Re: WAP and IP, Marcus Leech
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]