Burkino! {Anne Late}

The War Position {Posit Ground Payle Gain}

Unisude Soltis Position {Caelian Pi}

Magnesia in Question: China & World Trends Discussed

Report on NAIME’s Magnesia & Refractory Webinar Dashiqiao 9 July 2020

Last week IMFORMED was delighted to be invited to present on world magnesia supply trends at a special conference and webinar organised by the Northeast Asian Industrial Minerals Exchange (NAIME), Beijing Easynai Information Technology Co. Ltd, and the Liaoning Magnesium Industry Development Group.

what do you suppose i find in the hive of genoa ? nothing but the center of carcinogenesis and comeing to make it out in the mock up for typing in the mater. in position i make out the maters order whereas the feedback is lossy and suppose the almost nature square of return makes up for writing whereas i take on perdition to mock up mater and sight and cite and notion forward that actives way on formals whereas the feedback maintained both ways and the negative maintaining {is} #CH

Baron neesi E'

RFC 887                                                    December 1983
Resource Location Protocol

                               REFERENCES

[]   Postel, J.
      User Datagram Protocol. <-- tax baron neesi baron 'E
      RFC 768, USC/Information Sciences Institute, August, 1980.

[]   Postel, J.
      File Transfer Protocol. <-- E'baron baron baron
      RFC 765, USC/Information Sciences Institute, June, 1980.

[]   Postel, J.
      Internet Protocol - DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification. <-- neesi tax
      RFC 791, USC/Information Sciences Institute, September, 1981.

[]   Postel, J.
      Transmission Control Protocol- DARPA Internet Program Protocol <-- tax neesi
         Specification.
      RFC 793, USC/Information Sciences Institute, September, 1981.

[]   Postel, J.
      Internet Control Message Protocol - DARPA Internet Program <-- neesi 'E neesi 'E
         Protocol Specification.
      RFC 792, USC/Information Sciences Institute, September, 1981.

[]   Reynolds, J., and J. Postel.
      Assigned Numbers. <-- baron
      RFC 870, USC/Information Sciences Institute, October, 1983.

[]   Gurwitz, R., and R. Hinden.
      IP - Local Area Network Addressing Issues. <-- E''
      IEN 212, Bolt Beranek and Newman, September, 1982.

[]   Sollins, K.
      The TFTP Protocol (revision 2). <-- E''
      RFC 783, MIT/Laboratory for Computer Science, June, 1981.

. Sample Usage

The following scenarios illustrate some typical uses of RLP.  In all
cases the indicated messages are encapsulated in a UDP datagram with the
appropriate source and destination port numbers, message length, and
checksum.  This datagram is further encapsulated in an IP datagram with
the appropriate source address of the sending host and destination
address (either broadcast or individual) for the receiving host.

All numeric protocol examples are as specified in the appropriate
protocol description documents listed in the references.

 1. Suppose a freshly rebooted host H wishes to find some gateway
    on its directly connected network to which it can send its
    first external packet.  It then broadcasts the request

        <Who-Provides?> <Flags>=<Local-Only> <Message-ID>=12345
                    <Resource-List>={[GGP], [EGP]}

    encoded as the 8 octet message

           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           |  0  | 128 |   12345   |  3  |  0  |  8  |  0  |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

    on its local network.

     - Gateway G1 (which understands EGP) receives the request and
       returns the reply

               <I-Provide> <Flags>=none <Message-ID>=12345
                         <Resource-List>={[EGP]}

       encoded as the 6 octet message

                  +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
                  |  4  |  0  |   12345   |  8  |  0  |
                  +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

       to host H which then remembers that gateway G1 may be used


Accetta                                                        [Page 10]
 
RFC 887                                                    December 1983
Resource Location Protocol

       to route traffic to the rest of the Internet.

     -  At the same time, gateway G2 (which understands both GGP
       and EGP) might also receive the request and return the reply

               <I-Provide> <Flags>=none <Message-ID>=12345
                      <Resource-List>={[GGP], [EGP]}

       encoded as the 8 octet message

            +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
            |  4  |  0  |   12345   |  3  |  0  |  8  |  0  |
            +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

       to host H which might then also add gateway G2 to its list
       if it chooses.

 2. Assume instead that host H is a stand-alone system which has
    just encountered some fatal software error and wishes to locate
    a crash dump server to save its state before reloading.
    Suppose that the crash dump protocol on the host's local
    network is implemented using the Trivial File Transfer Protocol
    (TFTP) [8].  Furthermore, suppose that the special file name
    "CRASH-DUMP" is used to indicate crash dump processing (e.g.
    the server might locally generate a unique file name to hold
    each dump that it receives from a host).  Then host H might
    broadcast the request

            <Who-Provides?> <Flags>=none <Message-ID>=54321
           <Resource-List>={[UDP, TFTP, WRQ, "CRASH-DUMP"]}

    encoded as the 21 octet message

           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           |  0  |  0  |   54321   |  17 |  15 |     69    |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           |     2     | 'C'   'R'   'A'   'S'   'H'   '-' |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           | 'D'   'U'   'M'   'P'    0  |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

    to its local network (note that the file name component is
    explicitly terminated by a null so as not to exclude future
    further specialization of the crash dump protocol).

     - Host C (which supports this specialization of the TFTP
       protocol) receives the request and returns the reply

               <I-Provide> <Flags>=none <Message-ID>=54321
             <Resource-List>={[UDP, TFTP, WRQ, "CRASH-DUMP"]}


Accetta                                                        [Page 11]
 
RFC 887                                                    December 1983
Resource Location Protocol

       encoded as the 21 octet message


            +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
            |  4  |  0  |   54321   |  17 |  15 |     69    |
            +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
            |     2     | 'C'   'R'   'A'   'S'   'H'   '-' |
            +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
            | 'D'   'U'   'M'   'P'    0  |
            +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

       to host H which may then proceed to send its crash dump to
       host C and reload.

     - Host D (which provides TFTP service but not the crash dump
       specialization), however, might receive the request and
       determine that it provides no support for the resource
       (since the resource name contains components following the
       UDP port number which it does not understand).  It would
       therefore return no reply to host H.

 3. Finally, suppose host M wishes to locate some domain name
    translation server (either UDP or TCP based) anywhere on the
    Internet.  Furthermore, suppose that host M is on a IP network
    which does not provide broadcast address capabilities and that
    host R is a "known" resource location server for that network.

    First, since host M prefers to find a domain name server on its
    own locally connected network if possible, it sends the request

              <Does-Anyone-Provide?> <Flags>=<Local-Only>
                  <Message-ID>=12321 <Resource-List>=
                {[TCP, <DOMAIN-NAME-SERVER-PORT>] {M},
                 [UDP, <DOMAIN-NAME-SERVER-PORT>] {M}}

    encoded as the 22 octet message

        +-----+-----+-----+-----+
        |  3  | 128 |   12321   |
        +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
        |  6  |  2  |     53    |  1  |           M           |
        +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
        |  17 |  2  |     53    |  1  |           M           |
        +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

    to host R.

    Host R receives the request and consults its tables for any
    hosts known to support either variety of domain name service.
    It finds entries indicating that both hosts S and T provide UDP


Accetta                                                        [Page 12]
 
RFC 887                                                    December 1983
Resource Location Protocol

    based domain name service but that neither host is on the same
    IP network as host H. It must then send the negative
    confirmation reply

            <They-Provide> <Flags>=none <Message-ID>=12321
                          <Resource-List>={}

    encoded as the 4 octet message

                       +-----+-----+-----+-----+
                       |  5  |  0  |   12321   |
                       +-----+-----+-----+-----+

    back to host M.

    Host M, receiving this reply, might now abandon any hope of
    finding a server on its own network, reformat its request to
    permit any host address, and resend

        <Does-Anyone-Provide?> <Flags>=none <Message-ID>=12322
                           <Resource-List>=
                {[TCP, <DOMAIN-NAME-SERVER-PORT>] {M},
                 [UDP, <DOMAIN-NAME-SERVER-PORT>] {M}}

    encoded as the 22 octet message

        +-----+-----+-----+-----+
        |  3  |  0  |   12322   |
        +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
        |  6  |  2  |     53    |  1  |           M           |
        +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
        |  17 |  2  |     53    |  1  |           M           |
        +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

    again to host R.

    Host R receives this new request and is no longer constrained
    to return only local addresses.  However, since only space for
    a single qualifying IP address was provided in each request
    resource specifier, it may not immediately return both
    addresses.  Instead, it is forced to return only the first
    address and replies

            <They-Provide> <Flags>=none <Message-ID>=12322
        <Resource-List>={[UDP, <DOMAIN-NAME-SERVER-PORT>] {S}}

    encoded as the 13 octet message





Accetta                                                        [Page 13]
 
RFC 887                                                    December 1983
Resource Location Protocol

           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           |  5  |  0  |   12322   |  17 |  2  |     53    |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           |  1  |           S           |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

    to Host M.

    Host M receives the reply and (being the suspicious sort)
    decides to confirm it with host S. It then sends

           <Do-You-Provide?> <Flags>=none <Message-ID>=12323
          <Resource-List>={[UDP, <DOMAIN-NAME-SERVER-PORT>]}

    encoded as the 8 octet message

           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           |  1  |  0  |   12323   |  17 |  2  |     53    |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

    to host S and receives back from host S the reply

              <I-Provide> <Flags>=none <Message-ID>=12323
                          <Resource-List>={}

    encoded as the 4 octet message

                       +-----+-----+-----+-----+
                       |  4  |  0  |   12323   |
                       +-----+-----+-----+-----+

    denying any support for UDP based domain name service.

    In desperation host M again queries host R, this time excluding
    host S from consideration, and sends the request

        <Does-Anyone-Provide?> <Flags>=none <Message-ID>=12324
                           <Resource-List>=
                {[TCP, <DOMAIN-NAME-SERVER-PORT>] {S},
                 [UDP, <DOMAIN-NAME-SERVER-PORT>] {S}}

    encoded as the 22 octet message

        +-----+-----+-----+-----+
        |  3  |  0  |   12324   |
        +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
        |  6  |  2  |     53    |  1  |           S           |
        +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
        |  17 |  2  |     53    |  1  |           S           |
        +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+


Accetta                                                        [Page 14]
 
RFC 887                                                    December 1983
Resource Location Protocol

    and this time receives the reply


            <They-Provide> <Flags>=none <Message-ID>=12324
        <Resource-List>={[UDP, <DOMAIN-NAME-SERVER-PORT>] {T}}

    encoded as the 13 octet message

           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           |  5  |  0  |   12324   | 17  |  2  |     53    |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           |  1  |           T           |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

    from host R which of course host M again insists on confirming
    by sending the request

           <Do-You-Provide?> <Flags>=none <Message-ID>=12325
                           <Resource-List>=
                  {[UDP, <DOMAIN-NAME-SERVER-PORT>]}

    encoded as the 8 octet message

           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           |  1  |  0  |   12325   |  17 |  2  |     53    |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

    to host T and finally receives confirmation from host T with
    the reply

              <I-Provide> <Flags>=none <Message-ID>=12325
          <Resource-List>={[UDP, <DOMAIN-NAME-SERVER-PORT>]}

    encoded as the 8 octet message

           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           |  4  |  0  |   12325   |  17 |  2  |     53    |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

    that it indeed provides domain name translation service at UDP
    port 53.

A. Assigned Numbers

The "well-known" UDP port number for the Resource Location Protocol is
39 (47 octal).

"Tax Blough-wh, Bussd the Pharough"

earned enough money to find out where the trees rise over my necks foremost nakedness and it seems to be coming from the outer parts of the planets miYlder containments.