| Title: | atm |
| Moderator: | NPSS::WATERS |
| Created: | Mon Oct 05 1992 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Jun 05 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 970 |
| Total number of notes: | 3630 |
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 420.1 | It depends on what you want it to do | GALVIA::RAWLINGS | Mark Rawlings. IPEG @ ILO 1-4. Dtn: 822 4522 | Wed Dec 13 1995 05:39 | 49 |
| 420.2 | DUNIX to replace DECnis? | MOSCOW::FELIZHANKO | Wed Dec 13 1995 06:29 | 24 | |
| 420.3 | Consider GS/FDDI w/wo ATM | STKHLM::WEBJORN | Gullik Webj�rn Network Advisory | Wed Dec 13 1995 11:55 | 25 |
| 420.4 | re: DUNIX to replace DECnis | NPSS::KUENZEL | Wed Dec 13 1995 15:40 | 11 | |
| 420.5 | Conclusion? | MOSCOW::FELIZHANKO | Thu Dec 14 1995 02:23 | 23 | |
| 420.6 | Classic IP vs LANE | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Pete Schulter | Thu Dec 14 1995 16:03 | 20 |
| 420.7 | STEVMS::PETTENGILL | mulp | Fri Dec 15 1995 23:36 | 21 | |
| 420.8 | LEMAN::CHEVAUX | Patrick Chevaux @GEO, DTN 821-4150 | Sat Dec 16 1995 08:22 | 9 | |
| 420.9 | In defense of LANE | NOTED::WASNT::"[email protected]" | Tue Jan 09 1996 10:02 | 34 | |
| 420.10 | still some confusion | AOSG::FTW | Tue Jan 09 1996 12:45 | 10 | |
| 420.11 | re: still some confusion | NOTED::WASNT::"[email protected]" | Tue Jan 09 1996 13:08 | 10 | |
| 420.12 | avoid promoting frame sizes that weaken 32-bit CRC | MUDDY::WATERS | Wed Jan 10 1996 09:24 | 16 | |
| 420.13 | LANE vs Classical IP | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Pete Schulter | Fri Jan 12 1996 13:37 | 21 |
| 420.14 | AAL5 MTU size and CRC | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Pete Schulter | Fri Jan 12 1996 13:55 | 18 |
| 420.15 | I meant the 9180-byte MTU. 8 kByte was sloppy of me | MUDDY::WATERS | Fri Jan 12 1996 15:41 | 21 | |
| 420.16 | Gee, large packets over a cell net, what a contradiction in goals! | STEVMS::PETTENGILL | mulp | Tue Jan 16 1996 21:13 | 14 |
| 420.17 | some SARs are sensitive to MTU, some are not | MUDDY::WATERS | Wed Jan 17 1996 09:47 | 17 |