Re: Satellites running IP
Eric Travis <travis@gst.com> Wed, 19 June 2002 14:12 UTC
Message-ID: <3D109159.8030304@gst.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:12:41 -0400
From: Eric Travis <travis@gst.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020615 Debian/1.0.0-3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Shell <dshell@cisco.com>
Cc: tcpsat@grc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Satellites running IP
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020618082508.0170da30@lint.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020619084548.01712508@lint.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tcpsat@grc.nasa.gov
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1537
Lines: 57
Dan, I need to better understand your question... An onboard stack using (any flavor of) TCP and IP (version 4 or 6) is part of the SCPS recommendations. CISCO manufactures equipment that could be labeled "SCPS Compliant" if there were such a classification. Based on this, the answer to your question is: Yes If only there were a market for onboard networking equipment, CISCO marketing folks could add that to the marketing brochures :o) Now, when one asks a rhetorical question, there is generally a reason - I honestly want to understand your motivation was for asking a question (in this forum) where you know the answer. Please understand that missions will adopt whatever satisifies their goals (which are not limited to reducing risk from unfamiliar code-bases, increasing efficiency and maximizing the amount of science they can get down per unit of time and radiated power); These requirements may not mesh with the goals of the larger IETF, and hence may not justify attempting to standardize differentiated behaviors for use in the Internet (where they probably will never be used); When you have sufficent time, *please* reread my responses and then let's take this off list. It is not apparent to me that the discussion that you want to have is really relevant to the to the rest of the list... Enjoy the remainder of your vacation. Eric Daniel Shell wrote: > Eric > > So the answer is no. > > Sorry for the short reply but I am on vacation will get you a more > detailed > answer later >
- Satellites running IP David Carek
- Re: Satellites running IP Lloyd Wood
- Re: Satellites running IP William Ivancic
- Re: Satellites running IP Lloyd Wood
- Re: Satellites running IP Adrian J. Hooke
- Re: Satellites running IP William Ivancic
- Re: Satellites running IP Lloyd Wood
- Re: Satellites running IP William Ivancic
- Re: Satellites running IP Lloyd Wood
- Re: Satellites running IP Keith Scott
- Re: Satellites running IP Adrian J. Hooke
- Re: Satellites running IP Eric Travis
- RE: Satellites running IP Ahmed, Masuma
- RE: Satellites running IP Lloyd Wood
- Re: Satellites running IP David Carek
- Re: Satellites running IP Colin Paul Gloster
- Re: Satellites running IP David Carek
- Re: Satellites running IP Daniel Shell
- Re: Satellites running IP Eric Travis
- Re: Satellites running IP Adrian J. Hooke
- RE: Satellites running IP brian.smith
- RE: Satellites running IP Adrian J. Hooke
- Re: Satellites running IP Daniel Shell
- Re: Satellites running IP Daniel Shell
- Re: Satellites running IP Eric Travis
- RE: Satellites running IP brian.smith