ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Carrier Class Gateway

2001-04-27 15:10:03
Geez, the nerve of some people........ :-)
        If I'm not mistaken, there have been all too many international
efforts to advance this TORPEDO protocol. Several years ago, there were
several Germans who took the lead in this field with some similar efforts
from several Japanese. Eventually, the US protocol specialists prevailed,
when supplemented by the use of other protocols, but the protocol was not
submitted as an RFC and eventually fell into disfavor. It was determined
from empirical data gathered from field trials that the time and expense of
recovering (defragmenting) the packets far exceeded the benefit of utilizing
the transport media in certain networks. 
        This met the design criteria of the protocol. However, this protocol
was based on a discrimination algorithm, referred to as WLOPWHYP (We Like
Our Packets, We Hate Your Packets). Any invocation of this protocol in one
direction was likely to elicit an disproportionate invocation of this
protocol in the other direction. I'm glad to see we've managed to effect the
more egalitarian algorithm MPOKYPOK (My Packet's OK, Your Packet's OK.)
        Personally, I believe it would significantly add to mine, and many
other people's, happiness if we could all go to our deathbeds knowing the
TORPEDO protocol never reached the status of an RFC (marginal acceptance may
be possible if that RFC was submitted on April 1), and ever saw use in the
field again.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled show already in progress......


-----Original Message-----
From: Betsy Brennan [mailto:bbrennan(_at_)nbn(_dot_)net]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 5:11 PM
To: Ben Yalow
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway


I'm sure this is a stupid question (and I will probably get flamed for this
email),
but what does this have to do with the IETF?

Ben Yalow wrote:

At 05:00 PM 4/26/01 -0700, Peter Deutsch wrote:


"Willis, Scott L" wrote:

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.

Errr, actually carriers don't have 16" guns, the battleships did. There
*were* smaller caliber turrents on the older (e.g. WWII Essex class)
carriers for antiaircraft work, and the newer carriers have such things
as Phalanx for the same reason, but definitely not something as big as
16". Now, sending off a flight of F-15s with laser guided weapons on the
other hand...

Actually, while the Essex class carried some smaller guns (5", and then
lots
of smaller caliber), the largest guns on US carriers were on Lexington
(CV-2), and Saratoga (CV-3).  Since they were originally laid down as
battle
cruisers, and later converted to carriers, they still had 8 8" guns.



                                      - peterd

Ben
-----
Ben Yalow                                    ybmcu(_at_)panix(_dot_)com



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>