[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>There are also some nasty interactions between multicast and power
>>saving. To save power, the stations sleep most of the time, wake up
>>occasionally, and poll the server for any queued data. For multicast,
>>you have to either guarantee that all stations wake up at th
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
16.28% |7 | 15.06% |37183 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13.95% |6 | 16.23% |40077 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9.30% |4 | 9.56% |23606 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9.30% |4 | 7.09% |174
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 11:32:53AM -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > > I really do not understand you. Try in French :-) Because,
> obviously,
> > > if it is unicast, it is not multicast :-)
> >
> > unicast is a degenerative case of multicast.
>
> Bill, this is emphatically not true for hig
> > I really do not understand you. Try in French :-) Because,
obviously,
> > if it is unicast, it is not multicast :-)
>
> unicast is a degenerative case of multicast.
Bill, this is emphatically not true for high speed wireless links, such
as the upcoming IEEE 802.11n standard.
In high s
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> I still don't understand what the plan is.
>
> There is a lot of Internet broadband content distribution
> going on today. I do not see where this proposal fits in.
"Content Distribution" in the form of Akamai and other such solutions
are GREAT for Big Companies(tm)
At 10:43 AM -0800 1/12/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>I am really confused here.
>
>First, I know that multicast has a base in the IETF. Is there at this point
>any real prospect of widespread use? Multicast violates the principle of
>keeping the core of the Internet as simple and unchanging a
I am really confused here.
First, I know that multicast has a base in the IETF. Is there at this point any
real prospect of widespread use? Multicast violates the principle of keeping
the core of the Internet as simple and unchanging as possible. Multicast is
also the amplification mechanism to
I still don't understand what the plan is.
There is a lot of Internet broadband content distribution going on today. I do
not see where this proposal fits in.
Is this the choice of the right tool or 'have hammer, will use it' or 'have
always wanted this particular hammer and looking for excuse
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 11:03:44PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > do you want the code (8.1.2 based and haq'ed into 9.3.1 ) or do you
> > want to start fresh?
>
> put both up for ftp and share the url's here, and isc among others will take
> a look at them.
i think i will defer for
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:28:21AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 05:41:26PM +0100,
> Pars Mutaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 31 lines which said:
>
> > > Again, *read* draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-47.txt, the use of unicast is
> > > clearly possible (section
10 matches
Mail list logo
