Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Fiber optics
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:27:15 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 12:07 PM 5/14/98 -0500, D.Ghost wrote:
>OK. You could 1) say the uni-directional status is really a software
>enforced psuedo uni-directional thing (ie the line itself goes both
ways
>but there are MUCH fewer authorized transmissions going one way than
>going the other ...) or 2) say that deckers can't go down
uni-directional
>lines.
>
>Option 2 is fairly straightforward and I can't think of any
additional
>points that need to be made ... :)

Yeah. Unfortunately, the examples and the shadowtext describe
situations where deckers are going down them.

>Option 1 would make it tougher for deckers to deck through
>uni-directional datatlines but not impossible ... (ie give a bonus to
any
>IC or a penalty to the decker's utilities ...) also with less
authorized
>access the IC could be able to more thoroughly check the incoming
("Wrong
>Way") data (ie they'd have MUCH more info on what is allowed ... also
the
>traffic would probably be fairly low and regular (not neccessarily
>steady, just fairly predictable) and so if suddenly a decker started
>using this line to send his simsense channel down, it would set off
all
>sorts of alarms (data he could send bits at a time but that could
take a
>long time) If this is done with a second uni-directional line, the
>second could even have a much lower bandwidth ...

This is a workable solution, though I would imagine it'd take the
resources of a large corp to implement the custom hardware and
software needed to change the basic fundamentals of how a matrix
system works.

>Querry: How many copies of one frame can a decker have running around
the
>matrix at once?

- From what I can tell, there's not many limits. Dumb Frames must be in
the same system as the decker or they'll crash. I'm guessing that the
only real limit would be the load ratings of the system itself.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNVtTkc2C0fERRVM5AQFZBgP/aarHe5ohvEe3KnRnm85xlYxrizUTBeX1
E2jJ74GNfmyv0cItnxqsKe/HCI7leEr/evbbm+CiKNMn1rEDgZINsrOCJYzvX3PV
pMnmb6HLxk3/AUYcr9hgjY6Wki6/CpM2oidjU3LIxqS3cEJNohfapn0lmntjf/Ev
Dcj8/mwHmTY=
=/4hX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.