Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://ellegon.com/forum/

For the computer heads
http://ellegon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3151		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  someone1980 [ Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:27 pm ]
Post subject:  For the computer heads
I had an interesting discussion today. This person and I started talking about work. When I asked him what he did, he said "I work on a tactical TCP/IP stack".

I laughed for longer then was polite for that conversation (Ya you say tactcal pants out loud and don't laugh). Turns out they made a tactical TCP/IP stack for some wicked wireless stuff the Army was doing. He claimed that they got a huge boost in performance, for their application.

Any ways "Tactical TCP/IP Stacks" do exist. :)
Author:  grayskys [ Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Geez I am having enough trouble trying to learn php 5 and Mandarin Chinese with out having to worry about tactical stacks...

Fahng-tzong fung-kwong duh jeh. :D
Author:  Pat Cannon [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:48 am ]
Post subject: 
grayskys wrote:
Geez I am having enough trouble trying to learn php 5 and Mandarin Chinese...
Wow! AppleScript and English is all I can manage.
Author:  mo_the_mouse [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:20 am ]
Post subject: 
The TCP/IP stack, as it were, is not a fixed standard. Microsoft has its version, Linux and Mac theirs. You can build your own if you are so inclined. Knowing the military, the application probably had a built in stack which they modified for better performance.

So to answer your question. TCP/IP stacks do exist. Tactical is in the eye of the beholder.
Author:  jdege [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:29 am ]
Post subject: 
mo_the_mouse wrote:
The TCP/IP stack, as it were, is not a fixed standard. Microsoft has its version, Linux and Mac theirs. You can build your own if you are so inclined. Knowing the military, the application probably had a built in stack which they modified for better performance.

So to answer your question. TCP/IP stacks do exist. Tactical is in the eye of the beholder.


How TCP/IP implementations interact is very much a fixed standard. How they are implemented internally is very much not.

The standard implementations of TCP/IP were designed for a wired world, and issues of latency, timing, etc., have meant that they didn't work all that well when they were first tried wireless.
Author:  ttousi [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:51 am ]
Post subject: 
huh :? :shock: :? :shock: :? :shock: :? lost me after the title :roll:
Author:  someone1980 [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:57 am ]
Post subject: 
Mostly commenting on the over use of the word tactical. Turns out that it may have actually been used correctly in this case.

The very fact that a communications sub-system of a computer (sub-sub-system?) can be tactical sort of amazed me.
Author:  A Brit in MN [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
ttousi wrote:
huh :? :shock: :? :shock: :? :shock: :? lost me after the title :roll:


Me too, that said, being "tactical" SWAT black, ACU, Marpat or woodland camoflage :lol: :lol: What do they dress these computers in?
Author:  Selurcspi [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
A Brit in MN wrote:
ttousi wrote:
huh :? :shock: :? :shock: :? :shock: :? lost me after the title :roll:


Me too, that said, being "tactical" SWAT black, ACU, Marpat or woodland camoflage :lol: :lol: What do they dress these computers in?


Olive Drab, what do you expect!
Author:  SethB [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
jdege wrote:
The standard implementations of TCP/IP were designed for a wired world, and issues of latency, timing, etc., have meant that they didn't work all that well when they were first tried wireless.

Satellite links go way back, and they have much worse statistics than local wireless (802.11*).
Author:  joelr [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
ttousi wrote:
huh :? :shock: :? :shock: :? :shock: :? lost me after the title :roll:
Just geekitry; unless you're into it for work or fun, not worth the bother.
Author:  jdege [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:18 am ]
Post subject: 
SethB wrote:
jdege wrote:
The standard implementations of TCP/IP were designed for a wired world, and issues of latency, timing, etc., have meant that they didn't work all that well when they were first tried wireless.

Satellite links go way back, and they have much worse statistics than local wireless (802.11*).


Yep, they do.

And nobody runs TCP/IP over them.

Instead, they tunnel TCP/IP through them, which is a very different thing.
Author:  Jeremiah [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:01 am ]
Post subject: 
joelr wrote:
Just geekitry; unless you're into it for work or fun, not worth the bother.


Heyyy... ...I resemble that remark... :wink:
Author:  SethB [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
jdege wrote:
SethB wrote:
jdege wrote:
The standard implementations of TCP/IP were designed for a wired world, and issues of latency, timing, etc., have meant that they didn't work all that well when they were first tried wireless.

Satellite links go way back, and they have much worse statistics than local wireless (802.11*).

Yep, they do.

And nobody runs TCP/IP over them.

Instead, they tunnel TCP/IP through them, which is a very different thing.

I remember when we had to increase the message window over them, because otherwise the message window size limited the bandwidth (there could be more packets in transit than the window size allowed).

In any case, tunneling TCP/IP through a satellite link is no better, and probably worse: you still have the huge latency.
Author:  Jeff Boucher-Zamzo [ Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's even better then that. Over the years there have been several hacks developed by adjusting packet metadata in ways that confuse the ip stack of the recieving computers, creating all sorts of cool, and icky responses.

So not only can you create "Tactical Stacks", but you can create Tactical attack packets, and tactical stealth packets.

Look at SYN attacks, ICMP attacks, and Smurf (spoofed ECHO broadcasts)attacks.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/