> At 05:48 PM 2/7/02, Steven A. Ridder wrote:
>>What I meant was that SYN in tcp is just a bit that's
>>flipped to 1 to one. The bit is always there, but when it's
>>turned "on" it means something.
>
> Yes. (So is it bit-oriented? I would say yes, even though
> the term usually refers to WAN pro
At 05:48 PM 2/7/02, Steven A. Ridder wrote:
>What I meant was that SYN in tcp is just a bit that's flipped to 1 to one.
>The bit is always there, but when it's turned "on" it means something.
Yes. (So is it bit-oriented? I would say yes, even though the term usually
refers to WAN protocols)
>I'
What I meant was that SYN in tcp is just a bit that's flipped to 1 to one.
The bit is always there, but when it's turned "on" it means something. I've
never considered it data. The get in http or open in ftp is data in the
packet that has to be added to the packet. There is no "get flag" or "op
>That would be like if I asked you how TCP works and you said, isn't TCP
>just data within an IP packet? Now I'm asking you to consider how
>application-layer protocols work. They have operations also. In the case of
>HTTP, there are many commands. The question is how are the commands
>encoded? It
>Oh dear, but I have completely confused you.
Perhaps not. There is a danger in assuming that some feature in a
protocol design is there because of something incredibly subtle and
nuanced, when it really had to do with some technical or political
compromise.
>
>To be honest, the term "bit-syn
That would be like if I asked you how TCP works and you said, isn't TCP
just data within an IP packet? Now I'm asking you to consider how
application-layer protocols work. They have operations also. In the case of
HTTP, there are many commands. The question is how are the commands
encoded? It'
""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At 03:26 PM 2/7/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>
> >What is TCP? How is a SYN represented in TCP?
> >
> >What is HDLC? How is a GET represented in HDLC?
>
> That was supposed to say HTTP! HTTP, FTP, SMTP,
At 03:26 PM 2/7/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>What is TCP? How is a SYN represented in TCP?
>
>What is HDLC? How is a GET represented in HDLC?
That was supposed to say HTTP! HTTP, FTP, SMTP, POP and probably others,
have yet another way of encoding control information. It's byte-oriented
b
Oh dear, but I have completely confused you.
To be honest, the term "bit-synchronous" isn't very common. I couldn't find
anything about it when searching with Google. I took it to mean
"bit-oriented" which is a common term to refer to a protocol where control
information is encoded using indiv
Steven A. Ridder wrote:
>
> Just so I make sure I'm not lost, a bit-sync. protocol is one
> that has
> predefined fields that signify SOF/delimiters/protocol type
> (like Ethernet)
> and a bi-sync. protocol does not? It just sends characters,
> and after a
> predetermined number of bytes have be
Just so I make sure I'm not lost, a bit-sync. protocol is one that has
predefined fields that signify SOF/delimiters/protocol type (like Ethernet)
and a bi-sync. protocol does not? It just sends characters, and after a
predetermined number of bytes have been sent receives an ack of some sort
(L2)
Priscilla,
Thanks for taking the time for the long answer. Having fought PPP at the
LCP level so many times between different vendor platforms and as a result
of just generally misconfiguring things (esp. authentication), the idea that
PPP was character-oriented in that regard was intuitive to m
At 06:53 PM 2/6/02, s vermill wrote:
>I wonder if you, and others, would comment on ppp as a character-oriented
>protocol. I did a search on the internet and found some university teaching
>papers that characterize synchronous ppp as character-oriented while at the
>same time acknowleging the fa
Many thanks for that Priscilla! I was pushing the limits of terminology
almost (hopefully just almost) to the point of clouding the issue more than
clarifying it.
I wonder if you, and others, would comment on ppp as a character-oriented
protocol. I did a search on the internet and found some un
Nice job on bit-serial.
The question of whether WANs are reliable and connection-oriented requires
more explanation. I acknowledge Howard Berkowitz for teaching me this new
way of looking at the question.
To understand PPP, ISDN, Frame Relay, X.25, and probably many other WAN
protocols, it he
OK, thanks. I'd hate to get confused and have to tear up all my CCIE notes
I've been taking cause they were wrong. :)
""s vermill"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Steven A. Ridder wrote:
> >
> > is PPP connection-oriented with acks? I thought it wasn't.
>
> St
Steven A. Ridder wrote:
>
> is PPP connection-oriented with acks? I thought it wasn't.
Steven,
No. Yes. I think the strict definition of "connection oriented" relates to
layer 3 or above protocols (such as TCP). Of course, PPP does negotiate a
logical connection between two end points. Bu
is PPP connection-oriented with acks? I thought it wasn't.
""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Makes sense. Thanks!
>
>
> ""s vermill"" wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Steven,
> >
> > There may be some schola
Makes sense. Thanks!
""s vermill"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Steven,
>
> There may be some scholars lurking around that can more precicely define
> bit-serial than I. I think the term is interchangeable with
> bit-synchronous. Bit-synchronous contrasts w
Steven,
There may be some scholars lurking around that can more precicely define
bit-serial than I. I think the term is interchangeable with
bit-synchronous. Bit-synchronous contrasts with older protocols that are
binary-syncnronous (bisynch) or, better termed, character-oriented.
Character-or
20 matches
Mail list logo
