IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn-interest] DTN architecture issues for handling Huge Content Objects

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 06 December 2012 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967F721F8AB4 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 17:31:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FZTImPPnwGDY for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 17:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6A321F89CB for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 17:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D7CBE58; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 01:31:01 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G0NQWY4HoPmk; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 01:31:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.3] (unknown [86.46.17.194]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F2DB2BE55; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 01:31:00 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <50BFF554.8000908@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:31:00 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
References: <0F5B3127-09CD-4FEA-9937-01D12DF71953@bbn.com> <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B0FA0F3D2@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL>, <2021837C-586A-44EB-8249-7B037C14C3E2@bbn.com> <FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A37341C9B48C07@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A37341C9B48C07@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dtn-interest@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN architecture issues for handling Huge Content Objects
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group \(DTNRG\) - Announce." <dtn-interest.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:31:24 -0000

On 12/06/2012 12:46 AM, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> Protocol limits (such as LTP implementation 64K limitations) should not be a factor.

DTN2/LTPlib has no such limit (LTPlib has lots of my crap code
but nothing like that;-), and I don't think recent ION versions
do either, so I dunno what you mean there.

S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email