Re: Re- TCP broadcast storm
Bob Braden <braden@isi.edu> Thu, 11 November 1993 16:40 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05306; 11 Nov 93 11:40 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05302; 11 Nov 93 11:40 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12931; 11 Nov 93 11:40 EST
Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-14) id <AA28962>; Thu, 11 Nov 1993 08:33:39 -0800
Received: by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-16) id <AA14900>; Thu, 11 Nov 1993 08:33:22 -0800
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 08:33:22 -0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bob Braden <braden@isi.edu>
Message-Id: <199311111633.AA14900@zephyr.isi.edu>
To: postel@isi.edu, karn@qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: Re- TCP broadcast storm
Cc: braden@isi.edu, ietf-hosts@isi.edu, TCP-Group@ucsd.edu, MGauthier@iit.nrc.ca
*> From karn@qualcomm.com Wed Nov 10 21:17:57 1993 *> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 21:17:02 -0800 *> From: karn@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) *> To: postel@ISI.EDU *> Cc: braden@ISI.EDU, ietf-hosts@ISI.EDU, TCP-Group@ucsd.edu, *> MGauthier@iit.nrc.ca *> In-Reply-To: Jon Postel's message of Mon, 8 Nov 1993 08:43:10 -0800 <199311081643.AA24710@zephyr.isi.edu> *> Subject: Re- TCP broadcast storm *> Content-Length: 553 *> X-Lines: 11 *> *> This confusion between the Internet itself and the hosts attached to *> it continues. Last week, during the Houston IETF, the New York Times *> carried an article titled "Traffic Jams on the Information Highway" *> (or words to that effect, this is from memory). The article was *> clearly about the extreme loads that certain popular *server machines* *> on the net have been experiencing, but the title metaphor obviously *> gives the (mis)impression that the NSF backbone communication links are *> overloaded. As far as I have been able to observe, they are not. *> *> Phil *> *> Phil, Yeah, that was noted by a number of people. Dave Sincoskie (you know him, I suspect!) twigged John Markoff personally about it, and John said essentially that yes, he understood the distinction, but as a user he did not care. The main point of the article was the need to charge for services, and I guess he thought the issue of host/net services was secondary. Bob
- Re: Re- TCP broadcast storm Bob Braden
- Re: Re- TCP broadcast storm Jon Postel
- Re: Re- TCP broadcast storm Bob Braden
- Re: Re- TCP broadcast storm Jon Postel
- Re- TCP broadcast storm Phil Karn
- Re: Re- TCP broadcast storm Bob Braden