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
>