|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You don't use ISDN to network all the computers in the building
> together.
You don't use IP to network all the computers in your building together
either. You have one wire from your computer to the switch. You then run
wires between switches.
> You use ISDN to connect one computer in your building to one
> computer in some other building.
You're being kind of silly here, you know that?
I guess you can only connect a modem to one other computer, too, right?
When the other computer in some other building is connected to a worldwide
network of switching fabric, what do you think happens?
> 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.
Higher-level protocols like dialing the phone? You know, you can't even
connect two ISDN machines together. You *need* a switch in between, even if
the two machines are sitting in the same room.
>>> 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.
So that explains, for example, BRI having two high-speed channels and 8
source addresses on the D channel, right?
Tell me, how many people can you talk to on your phone?
>>> 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*. :-(
It is, in part, part of the problem of people showing you where to read up
on the subject and you saying "that would take too long."
>> 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.
TELEPHONES! Jeez, dude. How many nodes do you think is typical for one
switch in, say, downtown London? Hint: I'd guess somewhere between 500,000
and 1,000,000 subscribers per switch.
Interesting, perhaps, because you're not really thinking things through.
Given that IP isn't a physical networking technology, how do you think IP
gets all over the world if there isn't any network technology capable of
connecting to things all over the world?
>>> 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...?
Clearly nobody uses fax any more.
> Now do you mean they didn't design IPv4 to be easily extensible, or they
> didn't design IPv6 to be backwards-compatible?
The latter.
> And WTF happened to IPv5 anyway?
It was allocated to an experimental realtime protocol that didn't get deployed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |