|
 |
>> And, for the 17th time, you *are* aware that I'm talking about earlier
>> _computer_ network technologies, right?
>
> And what makes you think ISDN isn't a computer network technology?
You don't use ISDN to network all the computers in the building
together. You use ISDN to connect one computer in your building to one
computer in some other building. If it weren't for higher-level
protocols, you wouldn't be able to use this for anything other than
letting those two solitary nodes converse.
>> My point, which you seem determined to ignore, is that everybody who
>> designed a way to connect computers together designed it to only
>> handle a small handful of computers.
>
> Uh, no. How many computers do you think ISDN can connect together?
2, AFAIK.
>> It seems to me that it wasn't until IP
>> came along that you could connect very large collections of computers
>> together.
>
> You are mistaken.
Oh well. I guess that's the problem with being *alive*. :-(
> People were connecting together large numbers of
> computers long before IP was around.
Interesting. As I say, all the technologies I've seen support only small
numbers of nodes.
>> I'm fairly sure the telephone network connects vastly fewer nodes.
>
> You are incorrect. Indeed, in 1999, there was more *fax* traffic than
> internet traffic, let alone voice and data. Ten years later, probably
> less so. But you're talking about "earlier" networks.
That makes no sense at all. There are people who don't even own a
telephone, but have multiple computers connected to the Internet. And
nobody uses fax anymore. What the hell...?
>> BTW, how come nobody uses that yet?
>
> Because they stupidly didn't design in any backward compatibility, so an
> IPv4 machine can't talk to an IPv6 machine and vice versa.
Now do you mean they didn't design IPv4 to be easily extensible, or they
didn't design IPv6 to be backwards-compatible?
And WTF happened to IPv5 anyway?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
