Message-ID: <3803DE57.EACBB11D@cyrus.net> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:20:23 +0000 From: Justin Chapweske <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: [Fwd: long fragment implementation.] By Mike's suggestion I am forwarding this question to the mailing list.
attached mail follows:
Message-ID: <3802551E.6A7D5D13@cyrus.net> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:22:38 +0000 From: Justin Chapweske <email@example.com> To: Mike Spreitzer <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: long fragment implementation. Looking at your implementation in ILU shows that if the fragment size is larger than what the regular 18 bits can hold, then you set the long_fragment bit and ONLY use the additional 32 bits for the fragment size, leaving the 18 original bits completely empty, is this implementation correct? Because if so, I think that I might have some ways to, in an easily implementable and consitant manner, more efficiently use those 18 bits, while at the same time supplying more than 8 bits for session id's and atom ids (256 / 2 session ids for one direction is simply waay too small.) If this implementation is correct in regards to the SMUX spec, then I will do the same for my implementation. Then after mine is completely implemented and interopable with your implementation, I will propose some changes to the protocol that might be beneficial. Thanks, -Justin Chapweske, Cyrus Intersoft (http://www.cyrusintersoft.com/)