 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:09:06 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> It's all telecommunications, which is what I think Darren is saying.
>
> No. ISDN is a computer networking technology. It really is.
Yes, but it's all about getting information from point A to point B,
which is essentially what telecommunications is all about.
>> 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.
Much like the telephone system. ISO has no say about what my cell phone
number is. :-)
>> 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.
Yep, though there are ways of tunneling IPv4 through IPv6 and vice-versa.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:09:06 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>>> It's all telecommunications, which is what I think Darren is saying.
>> No. ISDN is a computer networking technology. It really is.
>
> Yes, but it's all about getting information from point A to point B,
> which is essentially what telecommunications is all about.
It's what all electronic networking is about. (Physical networking is about
getting "stuff" from A to B.)
In what sense is IP not telecommunications?
>> 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.
>
> Much like the telephone system. ISO has no say about what my cell phone
> number is. :-)
Yes. I'm agreeing with that, unlike Andrew's contention that it's all
centralized.
> Yep, though there are ways of tunneling IPv4 through IPv6 and vice-versa.
Unfortunately, they require someone to provide you a server, so most such
servers aren't open to the public.
--
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 09:51:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:09:06 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>>> It's all telecommunications, which is what I think Darren is saying.
>>> No. ISDN is a computer networking technology. It really is.
>>
>> Yes, but it's all about getting information from point A to point B,
>> which is essentially what telecommunications is all about.
>
> It's what all electronic networking is about. (Physical networking is
> about getting "stuff" from A to B.)
>
> In what sense is IP not telecommunications?
I didn't say it wasn't. I'm agreeing with you.
>>> 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.
>>
>> Much like the telephone system. ISO has no say about what my cell
>> phone number is. :-)
>
> Yes. I'm agreeing with that, unlike Andrew's contention that it's all
> centralized.
We're doing it again. Violent agreement. :-)
>> Yep, though there are ways of tunneling IPv4 through IPv6 and
>> vice-versa.
>
> Unfortunately, they require someone to provide you a server, so most
> such servers aren't open to the public.
True, at least at this point.
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?
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/05/2010 4:54 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
I think that it was a bit earlier than that in the UK but we are much
more closely packed.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I think that it was a bit earlier than that in the UK but we are much
> more closely packed.
I'm not sure of the history, but a lot of times, things will go a lot longer
where they were invented.
For example, in the USA, we had 96%+ landline penetration in residences in
1980 or so. South Korea had essentially none. Forward to 2005, and we have
like 20% of the population having cell phones and 80%+ of south koreans
having cell phones.
I.e., I wouldn't be surprised that by the time the UK had widespread
residential phone service, the technology was cheap enough that party lines
didn't really make sense.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> When the other computer in some other building is connected to a
> worldwide network of switching fabric, what do you think happens?
You use ISDN to transport some higher-level protocol that knows how to
do routing?
>>> 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."
Or maybe a result of thinking that just because you've been using
something for 10 years, you actually know something about it...
>> And WTF happened to IPv5 anyway?
>
> It was allocated to an experimental realtime protocol that didn't get
> deployed.
Now *that* at least makes sense...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You use ISDN to transport some higher-level protocol that knows how to
> do routing?
ISDN already knows how to do the routing. As does ATM and X.25. You don't
need to layer anything on top of it to route packets or connections.
> Or maybe a result of thinking that just because you've been using
> something for 10 years, you actually know something about it...
I dunno. I've been using my lymph system for a lot longer than that and I
know virtually nothing about it.
--
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 18/05/2010 9:11 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I think that it was a bit earlier than that in the UK but we are much
>> more closely packed.
>
> I'm not sure of the history, but a lot of times, things will go a lot
> longer where they were invented.
>
> For example, in the USA, we had 96%+ landline penetration in residences
> in 1980 or so. South Korea had essentially none. Forward to 2005, and we
> have like 20% of the population having cell phones and 80%+ of south
> koreans having cell phones.
>
Crikey!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_mobile_phones_in_use
In the UK everyone has almost one and a quarter mobile phones each (2008).
South Korea - 97.24% 2009
United States - 91.0% Dec. 2009
> I.e., I wouldn't be surprised that by the time the UK had widespread
> residential phone service, the technology was cheap enough that party
> lines didn't really make sense.
>
You are probably right, I missed the transition tho’.
Although I tend to think that it was not cost but capacity in GB (as it
was known then). Remember* there was no profit requirement with the GPO
but a mater of “national pride”.
* You won’t remember of course as there was no reason for you to take
notice. :-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
