home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
- From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
- Subject: Re: X.500 (was: second system syndrome)
- Message-ID: <id.PPVS.LD3@ferranti.com>
- Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
- References: <BtMtov.9xK@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <id.ZIRS.GD@ferranti.com> <BtuI66.56H@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:46:17 GMT
- Lines: 21
-
- In article <BtuI66.56H@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> mskuhn@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn) writes:
- > I am especially interested in using X.400/X.500 over periodic dialup
- > connections with slow lines (e.g. 9600bits/sec). If you can't bring the
- > user to the database in realtime, then bring the database to the local system.
-
- Well, that sounds like a lot of volume.
-
- > If I see the huge traffic that is transported in the USENET every day from
- > node to node in dialup systems, then it should be no problem to have a
- > permanent copy of large portions of the directory information tree using
- > the X.500(92) DISP (directory information shadowing protocol).
-
- I think you're overestimating the volume that Usenet leaf nodes get. From home,
- I feed a number of small systems that get a few tens of K per day. If I want
- to get a useful subset of an Internet-scale X.500 directory, what sort of
- volume am I looking at?
- --
- Peter da Silva `-_-'
- $ EDIT/TECO LOVE 'U`
- %TECO-W-OLDJOKE Not war? Have you hugged your wolf today?
- Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp. Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012 +1 713 274 5180
-