HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
Subject: TTRT
Keywords: wrong
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:21:00 GMT

I've been fumbling with high speed, single virtual circuit TCP over
FDDI lately.  Among my problems has been giving the receiver a chance
to send ACK's without letting the transmitter out of the groove.  To
solve that problem, I've been thinking about the general situation.

Several FDDI vendors have decided to make all of their equipment have a
default T_Req of from 4 to 8 milliseconds.  Since the target token
rotation time is the smallest of all of the values CLAIM'ed by all
stations on the ring, many and perhaps most multi-vendor rings in the
world have TTRT's of just over 5 milliseconds.  (5 ms because that is
the value chosen by Raj Jain's employer.  Raj Jain's analysis is the
excuse people use for forcing their customers to use such low TTRT's.)

Could someone remind me of why that does not waste as much as 30% of
the ring throughput?

Imagine a pair of TCP hosts with TCP-Large-Windows trying to move data
at maximum speed from one to the other.  Assume the ring latency is a
little high at 1 ms, because there is a lot of cable and 200
concentrator ports and hosts on the ring (many concentrators increase
the ring latency by 2*(N+1) microseconds, where N=number of physically
present ports, whether in use or not).  Maybe there are not 200 ports,
but the ring has a 90 kilometer excursion to another town using
single mode fiber, as has been done in existing, production rings.
(ANSI X3.139-1987 allows D_Max to be 1.617 ms.)

The TCP transmitter will have to release the token every 5 ms or
60-70KBytes.  The token will have to go around twice before the
transmitter can resume sending.  Those two rotations will consume 2 ms,
or 29% of the total available bandwidth, limiting the TCP virtual
circuit to less than 70Mbit/sec.  I'll admit it is not entirely wasted,
because the TCP receiver might use about 10 microseconds or 0.5% to
send an ACK on the 2nd token rotation, and any other stations might
each use similarly trivial amounts to send their 30-second NIF's.

If the TTRT were only 20 ms, the cost of token rotations in this
hypothetical ring would go down to 9%.  At the ANSI standard default,
the cost would be about 1%, and TCP would get around 97Mbit/sec.


Vernon Schryver,  vjs@sgi.com
From: djc@scimitar.unx.sas.com (David J. Cherveny)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.fddi
Subject: FDDI analyzers
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:20:09 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: djc@scimitar.unx.sas.com



We've had an FDDI ring for more than a year now with no problems ( at least,
none I'm aware of :-).  We've been fortunate so far, partly because the
ring is fairly homogenous... Ciscos, Timplexes, and HP 750s.

Now we are about to bring up another ring, this one will be heterogenous...
connections to our mainframe, Vax, a big Sun, maybe a Novell server or
two, some FDDI to ethernet bridges, etc.

Well, this collection has me worried.


So, we've been shopping around for an FDDI analyzer.  Seems that there are
units that:
	do high level protocol decoding/debugging real well
	but the hardware isn't real impressive.  

and units that:
	have high performance hardware that will get every packet
	on the ring but less high level decoding, etc.


I won't ask which FDDI analyzer to buy.  But it would help ME to decide on
my own knowing what sort of problems I can expect given this mix of systems.


Question:
What sorts of problems can I expect with this new ring?



Thanks

David Cherveny		Network Support		djc@unx.sas.com
			SAS Institute Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.fddi
From: ejdormer@bmers114.bnr.ca (Eric Dormer)
Subject: FDDI Traffic Characterization Wanted
Organization: bnr
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 20:24:20 GMT

Has anyone done statistical traffic characterization for backbone 
traffic on an FDDI LAN.  For example, in an R&D environment, or a 
corporate environment.  

I am hoping to create a model of "typical" FDDI traffic in particular
environments, by matching a multi-state model to empirically observed
statistical parameters.

The type of statistics that are most useful to monitor are:
burst size distributions, peak bandwidths, mean bandwidth, number of 
simultaneous users, traffic mixes, access peak bandwidth speeds, 
etc, for various type of applications, and environments.

Any references or data would be welcomed.  

Cheers, 
  Eric Dormer. 

=======================================================================
Eric Dormer                 | The opinions expressed here are not
Bell-Northern Research      | necessarily the opinions of my 
P.O. Box 3511 Stn. C        | employer.
Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4H7     |
Canada                      |
                            |
ejdormer@bnrgate.bnr.ca     |
=======================================================================

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.fddi
From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
Subject: Re: TTRT
Keywords: wrong
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:37:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.161645.24558@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, koning@koning.enet.dec.com (Paul Koning) writes:
> 
> In article <p7lne2k@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com>, vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:
> |>...
> |>Several FDDI vendors have decided to make all of their equipment have a
> |>default T_Req of from 4 to 8 milliseconds.  Since the target token
> |>rotation time is the smallest of all of the values CLAIM'ed by all
> |>stations on the ring, many and perhaps most multi-vendor rings in the
> |>world have TTRT's of just over 5 milliseconds.  (5 ms because that is
> |>the value chosen by Raj Jain's employer.  Raj Jain's analysis is the
> |>excuse people use for forcing their customers to use such low TTRT's.)
> |>
> |>Could someone remind me of why that does not waste as much as 30% of
> |>the ring throughput?
> |>...
> |>Vernon Schryver,  vjs@sgi.com
> 
> You might try to get your facts right.  If you read the paper you will
> find an answer to the question you posed... and you will also find that
> 5 ms is NOT the number Raj recommended.
> 
> For all of you interested in real information, here's a pointer to the paper:
> 
> 	ACM SIGCOMM '90 Symposium of Communication Architectures
> 	and Protocols, Sept. 24-27 1990, Philadelphia, PA,
> 	page 264-275.
> 	"Performance analysis of FDDI token ring networks:
> 	effect of parameters and guidelines for setting TTRT"
> 
> /paul


You're right.  I'm a little off the beam.

I have a copy of "DEC-TR-655", "Performance Analysis of FDDI Token Ring
Networks: Effect of Parameters and Guidelines for Setting TTRT" by Raj
Jain.  On figure 3 on page 8 has a curve with a knee a around 5
milliseconds.  The paragraph of section 12, "Summary", on page 13 ends
with the sentence "Since this value provides good performance for all
ranges of configurations, it is recommended that THE DEFAULT VALUE OF
TTRT BE SET AT 8 MS."  (emphasis in original)


My complaint is still valid.  An 8 ms TTRT wastes 20% of the bandwidth
of a ring with 1 ms latency.

Why do all DEC concentrators force TTRT to be 5 ms instead of 8 ms?
(Actually, it's a just a touch over 5 ms, but I've forgotten the exact
value).

Am I wrong that the paper worries a lot about measures of "efficiency"
and "access delay" but not at all about "throughput"?


Vernon Schryver,  vjs@sgi.com
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.lans:1919 comp.dcom.lans.ethernet:1813
From: nason@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: URGENT HELP, quick question!
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:03:23 GMT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

In article <92231.100828SHILL@HARPERVM.BITNET>, Steve W Hill <SHILL@HARPERVM.BITNET> writes:
> I don't know much about fiberoptics, there are several standards?
> What is FONET?  What are other ones, and are there simple black
> boxes that can convert between them?  Please, a quick answer. Thanks

Under 802.3 there is no standard for FONET.  The only mention of fiber in 802.3
is the FOMAU.  The FOMAU is the specification used for a fiber optic
transciever used in fiber repeter links, FOIRL, Fiber Optic Inter Repeater
Link.  FONET may be under active consideration by the IEEE,  my copy of the
spec doesn't have it.  I do not know the status nor have I heard any rumors.     

There are several companies that have ethernet on fiber.  The Chipcom Ornet
star being one of the popular ones.  Chipcom used the timing under 802.3 to
build their system.  It is basically a star with nodes connected to each end of
a fiber cable.  One node per cable, though a DELNI type device is legal
allowing more than one node per cable.  It is ethernet and works very well.  

You may wish to look at comp.dcomp.lans.fddi and .token-ring for more info on fiber nets.  I
think the token ring guys use alot, but its not my field.    

-- 
My opinions are my own and not those of my company.  
Free advice is worth its cost.  
--- John M. Nason - NA9U ---|--------------------------------------------|
Inland Steel Company        |  -- nason@pa881a.inland.com                |
Process Automation MS 2-464 |  -- Fax:   219-399-7856                    |
3210 Watling Street         |  -- Voice: 219-399-2450                    |
East Chicago IN 46312       |"Ya can't shoot em till they stop sparklin" |
----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.realtime
From: loew1@seas.gwu.edu (Murray Loew)
Subject: Re: Embedded Systems Networking Systems
Keywords: Echelon, LonWorks, Networks, X.25
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:49:29 GMT

Answers to a few questions

2. (Fiberoptics vs wire) 
	We did a system in a very electrically noisy environment
and ended up using low-speed (256 Kbaud or so) fiberoptic cables.  
With wire you have great big antennes picking up noise and potentially 
zapping your hardware.  We used HP components with visible LED's, 
which was nice, since you could SEE the signal.  Couplers didn't work well,
and bending the fiber caused a lot of loss.

3. Protocols
	On the same project, we used Z8530 SCC chips and DMA controllers,
with the SCC chips running SDLC loop mode.  Took a while to get everything
working.  With the fiberoptic links, you didn't have theoption of multi-drop.
We actually planned to have dual redundant rings, but never got everything
working for that.  The product, however, did go out the door.

In any case, Bit-synchronus (sp) protocols have lots of advantages
over async (i.e. send arbitrary data, built in checksums, usually
higher data rates), if your hardware supports it and you have time
to work out the somewhat more complicated software.  With wire,
multi-drop is a nice way to do things, but you can't easily do
this with fiber.

Parting shot --
	Take a look at the motorola 68302 chip - built in SDLC
	ports, clocks, chip selects, and lots more.
	Also there is a HITACHI Z80 based cpu (64180?) that (i think)
	will also do SDLC/HDLC

-- cary o'brien
-- cary.obrien@gte.sprint.com (real address)


Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,misc.legal
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Ungermann-Bass to Pay U.S. $1,242,000 Settlement
Organization: Echo Beach
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 07:49:12 GMT

Here is a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice

 Ungermann-Bass to Pay U.S. $1,242,000 Settlement
 Contact: Joseph Krovisky of the U.S. Department of Justice,
          202-514-2007

   WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Department of Justice
announced today that Ungermann-Bass Inc. (UBI) will pay $1,242,000
to the United States to resolve potential civil claims the company
failed to provide complete, accurate and current pricing
information to the General Services Administration (GSA) during
contract negotiations for computer equipment.
   Stuart M. Gerson, assistant attorney general in charge of the
Civil Division, said the settlement stems from GSA's 1984 award of
a one-year contract to UBI for the purchase of local-area networks
(LANS), which enable computers to communicate with each other.  In
1985 and 1986, GSA again awarded UBI contracts covering the same
type of equipment.  The contracts set the terms and conditions
under which federal agencies could make purchases from UBI.
   Gerson said that in 1987, UBI voluntarily disclosed to GSA that
it had not disclosed complete, accurate and current pricing
information to GSA contract negotiators when responding to
solicitations for the 1984-1986 contracts.
   In early 1992, UBI again voluntarily disclosed that it had
not provided accurate pricing information to GSA on a contract
awarded in 1991.
   After an audit and investigation by GSA's Office Of Inspector
General, the government alleged that in seeking the 1984-1986
contracts, UBI knowingly failed to provide current, accurate and
complete pricing data to GSA.  As a result, the prices negotiated
by GSA were higher than they would have been if UBI had provided
accurate pricing information.  The government asserted that this
failure constituted a violation of the False Claims Act and the
contract terms.
   The government also alleged that UBI engaged in defective
pricing as a result of its failure to provide accurate pricing
information with respect to the 1991 contract.
   The settlement was negotiated by the department's Civil
Division.  The alleged violations were uncovered by GSA's Office of
the Inspector General.
 -30-

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.realtime
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: Embedded Systems Networking Systems
Keywords: Echelon, LonWorks, Networks, X.25
Organization: U.S Dept. of Transportation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:08:42 GMT

gregh@cserver.plexus.com (Greg Hawley) writes:

...

>CRITERIA
>--------

>In choosing a networking product we have the following 
>criteria. 

>    1. Reliability is a larger concern than speed.
>       A system with sustained throughput of 10 kbps would
>       be adequate.
>    2. An open protocol is desired.  
>    3. Support less than 100 nodes (but more than *2*).  
>       No internetworking capability is necessary.
>    4. Distributed control of network is preferable.
>       No single node should control the network's
>       operation.
>    5. Must have industrial environment capability.
>       This includes wide temperature range, high
>       electrical noise resistance, etc.
>    6. Wire or fiber media are acceptable.

I believe there's an ARCnet version of LANtastic you may wish to investigate.
ARCnet is slow, but well within your speed range.  One of the things that
makes it slow is a large amount of error checking built into it.  ARCnet
was designed to be fairly dummyproof, and is tolerant of all kinds of media
problems that would halt an ethernet cold.
LANtastic is a peer to peer system, with no single machine as a failure
point, as with a dedicated server.  Still, I'm not quite sure what you mean
by "distributed control".  Any workstation on a Novell net can run SYSCON,
FCONSOLE, PCONSOLE, etc. provided the _user_ has the necessary privileges.
Since cost is an issue, I think you will much prefer wire vs. fiber.

-JTT

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.realtime
From: derway@cco.caltech.edu (Duane D. Erway)
Subject: Re: Embedded Systems Networking Systems
Keywords: Echelon, LonWorks, Networks, X.25
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:43:40 GMT


The INMOS transputer chips have multiple 20 Mbit/sec ports. Does anyone have
any experience using them? Does anyone have experience using the processors in
embedded systems?

	-Don
	derway@ndc.com

Newsgroups: alt.heraldry.sca,rec.org.sca
From: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Subject: Heraldry in Real Life
Reply-To: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 03:48:25 GMT


You know you're _really_ a SCA herald, when...
You see a Confederate battle flag on a truck on the highway, and immediate
think to yourself:

"Ah, let's see...Gules, on a saltire azure fimbriated argent, thirteen
mullets of five points argent.  Not in current use...obviously an
escutcheon of pretense."
-- 
Note to the Constitutionally impaired:  "...the RIGHT of the people to KEEP
and BEAR arms..." means EXACTLY what it says!
Vote Libertarian, Grassroots, or any third party...the Demopublicans are a
bipartisan evil!        "Technomad"  cc697@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: daniel@laplace.sscnet.ucla.edu (Daniel Schulman)
Subject: Re: Carburetors, gasoline, and why I don't recycle
Organization: UCLA
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:29:18 PDT

Instead of just flaming the guy who originally posted this article, maybe people
should take issue with some of the things he says.  For example, while I think
the connection between carbs and recycling is stretched, there still is the
question of the effectiveness of recycling.  Perhaps we should ask if the sense
of empowerment and that something is getting done that people receive from
recycling detracts pressure and attention away from resource reduction.  Maybe we
should question what gets recycled?   Why should we tug around heavy newspapers
to be recycled while tossing the heavy metals in batteries into landfills.

While all else being equal, I think people should recycle (which I do), but is is
an intermediary attempt at a solution at best.

Extinguish the flames and get back to issues.
-- 
~                                                      ~
~  Daniel Schulman     daniel@muir.sscnet.ucla.edu     ~
~                                                      ~
From: gford@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: NUCLEAR question: UTILICORP ?
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:19:05 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

(Nuclear Issues)
UTILICORP  (U.S. Electricity Itility)  A question.
Can anyone help me?
I would like to find out, if the above company has any connections, interests
or investments in the Nuclear industry.

If anyone has any information on Utilicorp, I would be interested to hear 
from you
Thanks in advance
		Greg Ford

	GFORD@WAIKATO.AC.NZ
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: sveini@mack.uit.no (Svein-Ivar Lillehaug)
Subject: Re: greenpeace
Organization: University of Tromsoe
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:48:25 GMT

In article <JYM.92Aug31101252@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>> If you want to know what Greenpeace *really* stands for, then
>> you should also try to check out the information, which is
>> often pure propaganda, from other sources.
>
>=o= Certainly one should not get all of one's information
>about Greenpeace from Greenpeace.  But we were talking about
>Greenpeace's statments and positions, which you were making
>wildly inaccurate claims about.

Jym, could you please tell me (and the other netters) which of
my statements were wildly inaccurate, and furthermore, how they
were inaccurate????


Regards,
Svein-Ivar

Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Carburetors, gasoline, and why I don't recycle
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:55:38 GMT

Eric Huppertz refuses to do his part to protect the environment until the oil
companies do their part.  Luckily, there are lots of people out there who
aren't holding the environment hostage like Mr. Huppertz.

He also thinks oil companies have designs for 100 MPG carburetors locked away
in their vaults.  Right.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: to michael
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:32:22 GMT

Frankly sealers are not stupid enufe to kill the adults. also if you know
any thing about seal development you should know that adult seals do not 
have fur at all. if it has fur it is a young seal. young seals have fur
because they havent yet created a thick enufe layer of fat to keep them
warm. they shed there fur after they are a year old. most of the game 
preserves for game birds are funded by hunters them selves. hunters have a 
greater investment in maintaining a population. whin confrunted with 
flamitory information you should do some resurch on the subject your self.
not every one is as fired up by greenpeace. seal hunters were alowed to
present there side of things (i think i saw it on IPTV.) the program that
i saw showed bolth sides of the story.

ELF-KIN
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: greenpeace
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:20:13
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<JYM.92Aug27090714@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Aug28.161348.301@news.uit.no>
	<JYM.92Aug31101252@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Aug31.174825.14946@news.uit.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: sveini@mack.uit.no's message of Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:48:25 GMT

> Jym, could you please tell me (and the other netters) which
> of my statements were wildly inaccurate, and furthermore, how
> they were inaccurate????

=\= My original complaint about wildly inaccurate comments were
in response to message <1992Aug25.021806.4773@news.iastate.edu>,
which was written by "Angela KAY Rolling."  Since you took great
exception to my complaint, I mistakenly assumed that you were
the author of those comments.  Please accept my apologies.

=\= If you wish to examine those comments, read that message.
(In gnus you place the cursor over that message-ID and type "r".
In rn you type "?<1992Aug25.021806.4773@news.iastate.edu>?rh"
once or twice.)  Several statements are made about what Green-
peace says and does which are simply untrue.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: greenpeace
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:07:14
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu's message of Tue, 25 Aug 1992 02:18:06 GMT

=o= You seem incapable of saying a single accurate thing about
Greenpeace.  Folks who want to know what Greenpeace *really
stands for should read their magazine, and check out the
misc.activism.progressive, where I repost Greenpeace press
releases.
    <_Jym_>
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: Sigh ... (was Re: Gore's Radical Ecology)
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:10:10 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug29.105010.1283@guvax.georgetown.edu> cfhammer@guvax.georgetown.edu writes:
>pps. if you must vote, i urge you to vote with your brain - read the 
>platforms. remember history. verify your sources. note - none of the
>above is also an option.

Perhaps you'd like to explain:

	1) where I mark the ballot paper for NOTA ?
	2) what part of the US Constitution covers the need for
		anyone to pay any attention whatsoever to a 
		NOTA vote ?

-- paul

-- 
"Fun" is a word invented by advertising executives to sell soft drinks.
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: gittel@nynexst.com (Kathleen Gittel)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace and other misconseptions
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:52:36 GMT

I find the whole svein tar communication odd. The "scientific expedition" he refers to is
actually a cover for hunting meat and eating it..he himself alludes to this in his
sign-off,"a whale a day keeps the doctor away".

Anyway, persons like svein tar who actually post to an ecology group are usually people
who are unconcerned about the topic and are looking for an forum to p*ss people off--a flamer
type whom I probably should have ignored.

But as a member of Greenpeace, I find him so invalid, that I decided to post.

Kathy