RE: Carrier Class Gateway
only 16 guns? why the dreadnoughts and battlecruisers of her majestys royal navy had 18 guns. Of course there at the bottom of the northsea near jutland with the other half of the grand fleet and German navy but lets not split hairs.. Rob Butlin, Senior Network Engineer Data Network Engineering One 2 One Office 44 (0)208 214 2218 Mobile 44 (0)795 738 2510 Fax 44 (0)709 208 8512 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Willis, Scott L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 April 2001 10:44 PM To: 'Pat Holden'; Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lloyd Wood Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Carrier Class Gateway 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. -Original Message- From: Pat Holden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:13 PM To: Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lloyd Wood Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway one would have to consider high tides during a full moon to get an accurate measurement. I am also sorry about this but... I think all the calculation regarding height limit should be made based on high tides; it is easier to know if a ship would be able to pass on high tide or not, when its the sentsitive time to let it pass, with it is higher tides... Manuel Arronte. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lloyd Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:44 P Subject: RE: Carrier Class Gateway There's some discussion of Panama requirements in 'The New New Thing'. Not just a lock, but there's a bridge to worry about; passing under it at low tide is your height limit. i would imagine the problem would be at high, not low, tide. oops. mea culpa. L. Sorry to add yet another post to a pointless thread but... Lloyd was right the first time. Height limit would be based on low tide. For ships that are near the height limit, waiting a mean time of 6 hours for the next low tide is not a big deal. -Mark NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER: This email (including attachments) is confidential. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system without copying or disseminating it or placing any reliance upon its contents. We cannot accept liability for any breaches of confidence arising through use of email. Any opinions expressed in this email (including attachments) are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect our opinions. We will not accept responsibility for any commitments made by our employees outside the scope of our business. We do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of such information.
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
Please tell me this is some joke about STD=standard that I'm simply not getting... Leslie. Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Peter Deutsch wrote: Errr, actually carriers don't have 16 guns, the battleships did. There Arizona had (has?) 14 ones. At least, when I visited Pearl Harbor a couple of years ago Anyway, will this proposed protocol also apply to STD carries over V* cannal ? :-) regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org - If ain't broke, ain't fix IT;but I'm broke, so IMFix IT! -- --- The best laid plans are written in pencil. -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
Peter Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I'm surprised nobody's yet raised the issue of fragmenting the payload in transit and the effect this will have on traffic throughput. As modeled so far, this seems to be an interesting case where if you reduce the size of the payload you actually decrease throughput, since the ship will ride higher in the water, at high *or* low tide. There is a very well established technique for fragmenting this type of traffic, and making it ride MUCH lower, although throughput still suffers significantly. Haven't you ever heard of Transport Oversize Rectifying Protocol Enhanced Depth Options? (DE-fragmenting the traffic is left as an exercise for the reader.) -- Dave Aronson, Sysop of free public Fidonet BBS Air 'n Sun, +1-703-319-0714. Opinions all MINE, not by Cryptek/NRA/SCA/Mensa/HWG/LPUSA/CAUCE/FedGov/God! See my web site, at http://listen.to/davearonson (last updated 2001-03-26). Device-driver proggers: see http://www.cryptek.com and send me your resume!
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
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[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
Peter Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I'm surprised nobody's yet raised the issue of fragmenting the payload in transit and the effect this will have on traffic throughput. As modeled so far, this seems to be an interesting case where if you reduce the size of the payload you actually decrease throughput, since the ship will ride higher in the water, at high *or* low tide. There is a very well established technique for fragmenting this type of traffic, and making it ride MUCH lower, although throughput still suffers significantly. Haven't you ever heard of Transport Oversize Rectifying Protocol Enhanced Depth Options? (DE-fragmenting the traffic is left as an exercise for the reader.) Isn't there already some government board or agency already assigned to defining this type of fragmentation/defragmentation? -- Dave Aronson, Sysop of free public Fidonet BBS Air 'n Sun, +1-703-319-0714. Opinions all MINE, not by Cryptek/NRA/SCA/Mensa/HWG/LPUSA/CAUCE/FedGov/God! See my web site, at http://listen.to/davearonson (last updated 2001-03-26). Device-driver proggers: see http://www.cryptek.com and send me your resume!
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[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: Carrier Class Gateway
Betsy, I agree. Please take the off-topic nonsense off the IETF list. You are wasting my time. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia USA On Friday, April 27, 2001, 5:10:59 PM, Betsy wrote: 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[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 5:11 PM To: Ben Yalow Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
Something New - Welcome! Thank you Robert. Betsy, your question was not stupid! I also lost some time deleting Carrier Class Gateway email's. :/ j0rgeCarD0s0 :) -Original Message- From: Book, Robert To: 'Betsy Brennan'; Ben Yalow Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27-04-2001 22:09 Subject: RE: Carrier Class Gateway 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 5:11 PM To: Ben Yalow Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re[2]: Carrier Class Gateway
M too! M. - Original Message - From: Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Betsy Brennan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Ben Yalow [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 4:46 P Subject: Re[2]: Carrier Class Gateway Betsy, I agree. Please take the off-topic nonsense off the IETF list. You are wasting my time. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia USA On Friday, April 27, 2001, 5:10:59 PM, Betsy wrote: 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[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven M. Be llovin typed: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill Manning writes: semantically confused. why would sailors be on the bridge? (the one over the canal) Right -- they should be using routers, not bridges. but there's only 7 seas - 802.1d scales fine to that size AS also, we've got enough jitter what with 6 hours mean delay but 6 hours variance - do you really want to add BGP convergence time problems too? and what of multihoming - its only a matter of time begfore someone on some continent wants a canal to two other oceans... cheers jon
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
Bill wrote: semantically confused. why would sailors be on the bridge? (the one over the canal) I guess you know the English expression the best horseman is always on his feet. The literal translation of its Dutch equivalent is: the best helmsmen are ashore ... Leen.
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
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... - peterd -Original Message- From: Pat Holden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:13 PM To: Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lloyd Wood Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway one would have to consider high tides during a full moon to get an accurate measurement. I am also sorry about this but... I think all the calculation regarding height limit should be made based on high tides; it is easier to know if a ship would be able to pass on high tide or not, when its the sentsitive time to let it pass, with it is higher tides... Manuel Arronte. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lloyd Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:44 P Subject: RE: Carrier Class Gateway There's some discussion of Panama requirements in 'The New New Thing'. Not just a lock, but there's a bridge to worry about; passing under it at low tide is your height limit. i would imagine the problem would be at high, not low, tide. oops. mea culpa. L. Sorry to add yet another post to a pointless thread but... Lloyd was right the first time. Height limit would be based on low tide. For ships that are near the height limit, waiting a mean time of 6 hours for the next low tide is not a big deal. -Mark -- -- Peter Deutsch work email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Director of Engineering Edge Delivery Products Content Networking Business Unit private: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cisco Systems There are only three types of mathematician - those who can count and those who can't. --
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Peter Deutsch wrote: Errr, actually carriers don't have 16 guns, the battleships did. There Arizona had (has?) 14 ones. At least, when I visited Pearl Harbor a couple of years ago Anyway, will this proposed protocol also apply to STD carries over V* cannal ? :-) regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org - If ain't broke, ain't fix IT;but I'm broke, so IMFix IT!
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
The New Jersey is a Battleship not a Carrier. The carriers are bigger. -Original Message- From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 8:41 PM To: Matt Crawford Cc: Vijay; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway At 03:04 20.04.2001 -0500, Matt Crawford wrote: Please suggest me place or a Document where i can get some information about Carrier Class Gateway. There is no such thing. Neither the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, nor any other man-made waterway has locks large enough to accommodate a modern aircraft carrier. taking the undefined from the tangential to the irrelevant: http://www.pancanal.com/eng/photo/jersey-animation.html Perhaps the USS New Jersey isn't modern.actually, I think a lot of stuff is designed to panamax
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:44:25 CDT, Robert G. Ferrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: There's some discussion of Panama requirements in 'The New New Thing'. Not just a lock, but there's a bridge to worry about; passing under it at low tide is your height limit. Ya know, if we wait long enough, I'll bet this thread may eventually work its way back to having something to do with the IETF. Would this be a 'mobile IP' problem for the ship, or is it 'service location' to find where the moon (and thus the tide) is at the moment? And of *course*, you want the bridge and the ship to be using some sort of IM Presence protocol so each knows the other is there /Valdis (who couldn't resist...) PGP signature
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
what type of media do you propose to run ISBP over? - Original Message - From: Robert G. Ferrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:13 PM Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway And of *course*, you want the bridge and the ship to be using some sort of IM Presence protocol so each knows the other is there This is a perfect application for the ISBP (Intraship Bridge Protocol)... RGF
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
what type of media do you propose to run ISBP over? Sailor-to-Sailor Relay, or maybe a specialized version of avian carriers (RFC 1149 et al.) using albatrosses or seagulls. RGF
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
Not just a lock, but there's a bridge to worry about; passing under it at low tide is your height limit. i would imagine the problem would be at high, not low, tide. oops. mea culpa. Not at all. On a trip between oceans, waiting less than 12 hours for a favorable tide is probably negligible. And outside the locks, any ship that fit through the locks will not block other traffic that also fits through the locks. (But I sure am glad I didn't send an answer to the What is Unused Dairy Product Helper question.)
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
There's some discussion of Panama requirements in 'The New New Thing'. Not just a lock, but there's a bridge to worry about; passing under it at low tide is your height limit. i would imagine the problem would be at high, not low, tide. oops. mea culpa. L. Sorry to add yet another post to a pointless thread but... Lloyd was right the first time. Height limit would be based on low tide. For ships that are near the height limit, waiting a mean time of 6 hours for the next low tide is not a big deal. -Mark
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
what type of media do you propose to run ISBP over? Sailor-to-Sailor Relay Relay? Sounds like a synchronous protocol, requiring heavy use of real-time techniques such as semaphores -- http://www.anbg.gov.au/flags/semaphore.html If it were truly carrier class it would have large enough spools to handle plenty of asynchronous messages -- http://www.anbg.gov.au/flags/signal-flags.html However, those of us who choose to use asynchronous protocols can more easily make use of powerful, space saving message compression -- http://www.anbg.gov.au/flags/signal-meaning.html If there is ever an IETF held at sea, I nominate the flag for Y - I am carrying mails as a conference logo. Cheers, James
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
However, those of us who choose to use asynchronous protocols can more easily make use of powerful, space saving message compression -- http://www.anbg.gov.au/flags/signal-meaning.html If there is ever an IETF held at sea, I nominate the flag for Y - I am carrying mails as a conference logo. Oh, I don't know, the flag for G (I require a pilot) seems to describe us pretty well, also... RGF
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
Not on the bridge, the need to cross UNDER it... M. - Original Message - From: Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dawson, Peter D [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:25 P Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway semantically confused. why would sailors be on the bridge? (the one over the canal) Or is this a case of ShipsIntheNight % % .dark fiber optics..based on Dense Wavelength % Division Multiplexing.. layed 2 km below the surface % of the sea... oh factor in high/low tide ... % % --Original Message- % -From: Pat Holden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] % -Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:05 PM % -To: Robert G. Ferrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway % - % - % -what type of media do you propose to run ISBP over? % -- Original Message - % -From: Robert G. Ferrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:13 PM % -Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway % - % - % - And of *course*, you want the bridge and the ship to be % -using some sort % - of IM Presence protocol so each knows the other is there % - % - This is a perfect application for the ISBP (Intraship % -Bridge Protocol)... % - % - RGF % - % -- --bill
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
semantically confused. why would sailors be on the bridge? (the one over the canal) Or is this a case of ShipsIntheNight % % .dark fiber optics..based on Dense Wavelength % Division Multiplexing.. layed 2 km below the surface % of the sea... oh factor in high/low tide ... % % --Original Message- % -From: Pat Holden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] % -Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:05 PM % -To: Robert G. Ferrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway % - % - % -what type of media do you propose to run ISBP over? % -- Original Message - % -From: Robert G. Ferrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:13 PM % -Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway % - % - % - And of *course*, you want the bridge and the ship to be % -using some sort % - of IM Presence protocol so each knows the other is there % - % - This is a perfect application for the ISBP (Intraship % -Bridge Protocol)... % - % - RGF % - % -- --bill
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
However, those of us who choose to use asynchronous protocols can more easily make use of powerful, space saving message compression -- http://www.anbg.gov.au/flags/signal-meaning.html If there is ever an IETF held at sea, I nominate the flag for Y - I am carrying mails as a conference logo. Oh, I don't know, the flag for G (I require a pilot) seems to describe us pretty well, also... Are you trying to imply we're rudderless??!!! RGF
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
This would a collision avoidance protocol. For example, measure maximum height of the carrier class unit, compare to minimum height of the terrestrial routed physical path bridge. If the CCU exceeds the TRPPB, it must back off and wait until the next measurement cycle or until the measurement process if manually initiated. Some consideration has to be made for the potential fluctuation of the media path of the CCU. -ja --- There's some discussion of Panama requirements in 'The New New Thing'. Not just a lock, but there's a bridge to worry about; passing under it at low tide is your height limit. i would imagine the problem would be at high, not low, tide. oops. mea culpa. L. Sorry to add yet another post to a pointless thread but... Lloyd was right the first time. Height limit would be based on low tide. For ships that are near the height limit, waiting a mean time of 6 hours for the next low tide is not a big deal. -Mark
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill Manning writes: semantically confused. why would sailors be on the bridge? (the one over the canal) Right -- they should be using routers, not bridges. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
Hmm, does this mean we need a BOF to determine if there is a need for a ShipsInTheDay protocol or if the ShipsInTheNight protocol would be adequate for the job (with a few extensions of course)? Are we sure that ATM would be desirable in this instance? Personally, I think this sounds like a job for IPv9 Man.if I'm not mistaken, each semaphore/signal flag will require it's own IP address so as to have the capability to report usage stats via SMNPvx, at least... But I must state it is so rewarding to see the enthusiasm being generated by this thread. I will no longer tolerate anyone saying the IETF is not sensitive or responsive to the needs of the user community.. Are our days so dull..? :-) -Original Message- From: Bill Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 3:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway semantically confused. why would sailors be on the bridge? (the one over the canal) Or is this a case of ShipsIntheNight % % .dark fiber optics..based on Dense Wavelength % Division Multiplexing.. layed 2 km below the surface % of the sea... oh factor in high/low tide ... % % --Original Message- % -From: Pat Holden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] % -Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:05 PM % -To: Robert G. Ferrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway % - % - % -what type of media do you propose to run ISBP over? % -- Original Message - % -From: Robert G. Ferrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:13 PM % -Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway % - % - % - And of *course*, you want the bridge and the ship to be % -using some sort % - of IM Presence protocol so each knows the other is there % - % - This is a perfect application for the ISBP (Intraship % -Bridge Protocol)... % - % - RGF % - % -- --bill
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
one would have to consider high tides during a full moon to get an accurate measurement. I am also sorry about this but... I think all the calculation regarding height limit should be made based on high tides; it is easier to know if a ship would be able to pass on high tide or not, when its the sentsitive time to let it pass, with it is higher tides... Manuel Arronte. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lloyd Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:44 P Subject: RE: Carrier Class Gateway There's some discussion of Panama requirements in 'The New New Thing'. Not just a lock, but there's a bridge to worry about; passing under it at low tide is your height limit. i would imagine the problem would be at high, not low, tide. oops. mea culpa. L. Sorry to add yet another post to a pointless thread but... Lloyd was right the first time. Height limit would be based on low tide. For ships that are near the height limit, waiting a mean time of 6 hours for the next low tide is not a big deal. -Mark
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
However, those of us who choose to use asynchronous protocols can more easily make use of powerful, space saving message compression -- http://www.anbg.gov.au/flags/signal-meaning.html If there is ever an IETF held at sea, I nominate the flag for Y - I am carrying mails as a conference logo. Oh, I don't know, the flag for G (I require a pilot) seems to describe us pretty well, also... I'd nominate Pi (I am engulfed in flames) UDP Helper: 30 minutes, one cup water, mix it up on the stovetop and it's dinner.
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
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. -Original Message- From: Pat Holden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:13 PM To: Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lloyd Wood Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway one would have to consider high tides during a full moon to get an accurate measurement. I am also sorry about this but... I think all the calculation regarding height limit should be made based on high tides; it is easier to know if a ship would be able to pass on high tide or not, when its the sentsitive time to let it pass, with it is higher tides... Manuel Arronte. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lloyd Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:44 P Subject: RE: Carrier Class Gateway There's some discussion of Panama requirements in 'The New New Thing'. Not just a lock, but there's a bridge to worry about; passing under it at low tide is your height limit. i would imagine the problem would be at high, not low, tide. oops. mea culpa. L. Sorry to add yet another post to a pointless thread but... Lloyd was right the first time. Height limit would be based on low tide. For ships that are near the height limit, waiting a mean time of 6 hours for the next low tide is not a big deal. -Mark
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
Oh, I don't know, the flag for G (I require a pilot) seems to describe us pretty well, also... Are you trying to imply we're rudderless??!!! No, no: Palm Pilots.. Maybe we could use 'A' (D(r)iver below, I am undergoing a speed trial) for b@ke@ffs.
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
At 03:04 20.04.2001 -0500, Matt Crawford wrote: Please suggest me place or a Document where i can get some information about Carrier Class Gateway. There is no such thing. Neither the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, nor any other man-made waterway has locks large enough to accommodate a modern aircraft carrier. taking the undefined from the tangential to the irrelevant: http://www.pancanal.com/eng/photo/jersey-animation.html Perhaps the USS New Jersey isn't modern.actually, I think a lot of stuff is designed to panamax
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: taking the undefined from the tangential to the irrelevant: http://www.pancanal.com/eng/photo/jersey-animation.html Perhaps the USS New Jersey isn't modern.actually, I think a lot of stuff is designed to panamax Being able to use our warships in either ocean as needed used to be a major consideration, since it allowed us to build fewer of these expensive ships than we would otherwise need. Back when the Iowa class ships were built, this was a design _requirement_. The limiting locks are 110' wide, and the Iowas are 108' wide. Nowadays, the US Navy has had to give this ability up, as the carriers had to keep growing to deal with the growth in combat aircraft. None of the US Navy's modern aircraft carriers can use the Panama Canal. They can use the Suez, though, since that is a fully sea-level ditch with no locks. This is even more irrelevant than expected though, as 1940s battleships are neither modern nor aircraft carriers. -- : Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted.
Carrier Class Gateway
Hi, Please suggest me place or a Document where i can get some information about " Carrier Class Gateway". thanks in Advance Vijay
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
Please suggest me place or a Document where i can get some information about " Carrier Class Gateway". There is no such thing. Neither the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, nor any other man-made waterway has locks large enough to accommodate a modern aircraft carrier.
