nanog mailing list archives
Re: Packet Loss
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:19:47 -0800
In message <Pine.LNX.4.30.0012150921140.15394-100000 () grant liveonthenet com>, " John R. Grant" writes:
Yesterday, Roeland Meyer wrote:I know for certain that it dates back to the pain-frame daze and originally refered to 9600 baud open-reel tape <snip><cringe> that would be 9600 bit per inch GCR format 9-track tape, don't you think? </cringe>
They didn't have nearly that density -- when I heard the phrase, it was
800 or 1600 bits per linear inch (1600' reels), with 8 bits (plus
parity) across. And 200 bpi 6-track tapes were still in use, though being
phased out.
--Steve Bellovin
Current thread:
- RE: Packet Loss, (continued)
- RE: Packet Loss Muir, Ronald (Dec 15)
- Re: Packet Loss Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 15)
- Re: Packet Loss M. David Leonard (Dec 15)
- Re: Packet Loss Stephen Stuart (Dec 15)
- Re: Packet Loss Jason (Dec 15)
- Re: Packet Loss Jon Mansey (Dec 15)
- Re: Packet Loss Scott Solmonson (Dec 15)
- Re: Packet Loss John Fraizer (Dec 15)
- Re: Packet Loss Scott Solmonson (Dec 15)
- Re: Packet Loss Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 15)
- RE: Packet Loss Muir, Ronald (Dec 15)
- Re: Packet Loss Mr. James W. Laferriere (Dec 15)