#302968* (?/27) ⚐Flag
< jercos> I think I will go find a cookie.
<~nameless> bring me one
<~nameless> please
< jercos> If I find one for you, I will
<~nameless> thanks
<&You> nameless: help me with c/ip
<&You> cookies over ip
<~nameless> tee hee hee
< Knife> FUCK, now I want some cookies.
< jercos> c/ip is unreliable, and has no rate control. We need an iCOOKIE protocol, to tunnel cookies reliably over TCP/IP
< jercos> Either that or we can just drop the overhead of IP and go with CoE
<&You> CoE?
<&You> Cookies over ethernet?
< jercos> Yes
< jercos> Is it not genius?
< jercos> high-speed low-price cookies, without any of that expensive CookieChannel infrastructure.
< jercos> Though, CCoE (CookieChannel over Ethernet) does boast its own advantages, such as being able to be bridges into a CookieChannel system.
< jercos> but even a simple device like a Host Cookie Adapter can be much more expensive if you expect to then handle CCoE in hardware just like CC would be handled...
< jercos> I'm not sure where HyperCookie fits into all this, but the iCOOKIE guys seem to think HyperCookie is fundamentally flawed, despite CoE working just fine.
< Knife> Well, what about CoIP?
<~nameless> jercos: wait, is HyperCookie the same as Hyper Cookie Transfer Protocol?
< Atreus> mmm, cookies
<&You> hm.
< jercos> nameless: HyperCookie is a different encapsulation for cookie over ethernet.Comment: irc.subluminal.net #boats
|