 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:53:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Yep. A cable can carry huge amounts of data, depending on its length.
> The closer the fiber hubs out to the houses, the more channels you can
> carry.
It's not just a function of the cable length, though; encoding the data,
attenuation, other forms of interference, etc - but that's all outside
the scope of discussion. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/05/2010 11:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:55:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> If you're on a party line and I'm not, and I call you
>
> Then you get a busy signal. ;-)
>
Are you allowed to use real life examples, here?
Do you still have party lines in 2010?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Interesting. Because from what I've seen, all the earlier technologies
>> allow you to connect together maybe a few dozen nodes, and then stop
>> working after you try to scale much beyond that.
>
> Um, you *are* aware that we had a global telephone network *before* we
> had computers, right?
And, for the 17th time, you *are* aware that I'm talking about earlier
_computer_ network technologies, right?
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. It seems to me that it wasn't until IP
came along that you could connect very large collections of computers
together.
>> Oh, and then people whine that it doesn't map cleanly to the ISO/OSI
>> 7-layer model. Oh well...
>
> Exactly. It doesn't map cleanly to the global network that was already
> around for decades before IP was even conceived. It is difficult to
> manage and debug and route compared to the world-wide telephone network
> everyone takes for granted.
I'm fairly sure the telephone network connects vastly fewer nodes. It
was also originally analogue, not digital. Not to mention being managed
by a very small number of companies. But anyway...
> And they're running out of addresses
> (actually, probably already ran out of addresses) long before every
> person has an address, let alone every piece of communications equipment.
Isn't that why IPv6 was invented?
BTW, how come nobody uses that yet? And does it replace just the IP
layer, or the entire protocol stack?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:19:54 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> And, for the 17th time, you *are* aware that I'm talking about earlier
> _computer_ network technologies, right?
It's all telecommunications, which is what I think Darren is saying.
> I'm fairly sure the telephone network connects vastly fewer nodes. It
> was also originally analogue, not digital. Not to mention being managed
> by a very small number of companies. But anyway...
IP address blocks are managed by IANA - a single organisation. IANA does
delegate some administrative tasks, but overall they handle the larger
picture.
>> And they're running out of addresses
>> (actually, probably already ran out of addresses) long before every
>> person has an address, let alone every piece of communications
>> equipment.
>
> Isn't that why IPv6 was invented?
Yes.
> BTW, how come nobody uses that yet? And does it replace just the IP
> layer, or the entire protocol stack?
Some people do use it. IPv6 runs at the same OSI level as IPv4, so yes,
it's a direct replacement.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And, for the 17th time, you *are* aware that I'm talking about earlier
>> _computer_ network technologies, right?
>
> It's all telecommunications, which is what I think Darren is saying.
And what I'm saying is that it just seems that whenever somebody sat
down and designed a system for making computers talk to each other, they
invisiged a LAN with a quite limited number of nodes.
> IP address blocks are managed by IANA - a single organisation. IANA does
> delegate some administrative tasks, but overall they handle the larger
> picture.
That's roughly what I figured.
>> BTW, how come nobody uses that yet? And does it replace just the IP
>> layer, or the entire protocol stack?
>
> Some people do use it. IPv6 runs at the same OSI level as IPv4, so yes,
> it's a direct replacement.
I mean, for example, does TCP work differently with IPv6, or is it the
exact same protocol just running over a different carrier?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Do you still have party lines in 2010?
The last party line was shut down in the late 1980s in the USA, if I recall
properly. It was surprisingly recent.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 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?
From the very first sentence in the wikipedia page you claimed was too complex:
"""
Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) is a set of communications
standards for simultaneous digital transmission of voice, video, data, and
other network services over the traditional circuits of the public switched
telephone network.
"""
What do you think "Integrated Services" means?
> 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?
Or perhaps you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.25
> 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. People were connecting together large numbers of computers
long before IP was around.
> 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.
Just the number of telephones exceeded the number of IP addresses just a
couple of years ago. And that's not even counting the fact that IP allocates
multiple IP addresses to each router in the network and the PSTN doesn't
allocate phone numbers to the switches at all. If you actually allocated an
address to every endpoint like you do in IP, you'd have an order of
magnitude more addresses in the PSTN than you do in IP.
> It was also originally analogue, not digital.
Yes, but irrelevant once you invent the modem. All underlying network
technology is analog until it gets to a modem.
> Not to mention being managed
> by a very small number of companies.
Not particularly. Certainly not nowadays.
>> And they're running out of addresses (actually, probably already ran
>> out of addresses) long before every person has an address, let alone
>> every piece of communications equipment.
>
> Isn't that why IPv6 was invented?
In part.
> 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.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:19:54 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> And, for the 17th time, you *are* aware that I'm talking about earlier
>> _computer_ network technologies, right?
>
> It's all telecommunications, which is what I think Darren is saying.
No. ISDN is a computer networking technology. It really is. When you swipe
your credit card, it uses the D channel of ISDN to deliver the numbers to
your bank and get the auth back. It's digital. It's computer. It happens to
be common that you take those bytes and run them thru a DAC to a speaker.
That doesn't mean your phone isn't a computer.
> IP address blocks are managed by IANA - a single organisation. IANA does
> delegate some administrative tasks, but overall they handle the larger
> picture.
And telco numbers are managed by ISO, and then each country, then each
company, then each local office, because the telco has *way* too many phone
numbers and crosses *way* too many administrative domains to make it
reasonable to only have two levels of network allocation.
IANA allocates blocks to Tier 1 providers. Then *they* split up the blocks
smaller and smaller. IANA has no say in what /24 you wind up getting on your
individual cable modem.
> Some people do use it. IPv6 runs at the same OSI level as IPv4, so yes,
> it's a direct replacement.
And that's the problem. It's a replacement, not an upgrade.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> And what I'm saying is that it just seems that whenever somebody sat
> down and designed a system for making computers talk to each other, they
> invisiged a LAN with a quite limited number of nodes.
And yet I've given you half a dozen examples to the contrary. I give up.
>> IP address blocks are managed by IANA - a single organisation. IANA
>> does delegate some administrative tasks, but overall they handle the
>> larger picture.
>
> That's roughly what I figured.
They handle the top-level allocations of blocks for people who connect to
the primary backbone. Your ISP isn't one of them.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 2010 16:46:34 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> And, for the 17th time, you *are* aware that I'm talking about earlier
>>> _computer_ network technologies, right?
>>
>> It's all telecommunications, which is what I think Darren is saying.
>
> And what I'm saying is that it just seems that whenever somebody sat
> down and designed a system for making computers talk to each other, they
> invisiged a LAN with a quite limited number of nodes.
Have you read up on IPX? Used in some of the first PC networks, and it
was designed with multiple networks in mind and routing.
I've actually talked with one the guys who came up with that stuff.
"Limited" wasn't part of the equation, in fact, quite the opposite.
The fact that IPv6 uses the MAC address of the NIC as part of its address
is something they "borrowed" from IPX, in fact.
>>> BTW, how come nobody uses that yet? And does it replace just the IP
>>> layer, or the entire protocol stack?
>>
>> Some people do use it. IPv6 runs at the same OSI level as IPv4, so
>> yes, it's a direct replacement.
>
> I mean, for example, does TCP work differently with IPv6, or is it the
> exact same protocol just running over a different carrier?
I imagine Google could answer that question for you; I don't know off the
top of my head.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
