 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
Well that's news to me...
>> 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.
Ah, but do you have qualifications about it? Did you get an A* in your
Lymph System Utilisation finals?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> 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
Exactly. And that's *mobile* phones. The US still has 90%+ penetration of
land lines *also*. It's not uncommon for a family of four to have 10 phone
numbers dedicated to their use. That's why I say the PSTN is way bigger than
the internet, because (A) that's not even counting addresses assigned to
switches, which IP has to count, and (B) not even counting commercial phone
numbers, fax lines, pagers, phone numbers assigned to modems, etc.
I'm not even sure if VOIP and cable telephone counts as part of the PSTN.
--
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 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.
>
> Well that's news to me...
You don't understand that ISDN carries phone calls as part of its Integrated
Services?
You didn't read the first paragraph of the wikipedia page I looked up for you?
--
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 14:03:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> I'm not even sure if VOIP and cable telephone counts as part of the
> PSTN.
I think it probably does, as I understand a not insignificant portion of
the PSTN is VOIP-based these days.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:03:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> I'm not even sure if VOIP and cable telephone counts as part of the
>> PSTN.
>
> I think it probably does, as I understand a not insignificant portion of
> the PSTN is VOIP-based these days.
Well, again, I'm just talking about the client endpoints. I.e., those bits
that have phone numbers as such. I know a lot of voice traffic between
switches is carried on VOIP at this point.
--
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 14:12:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:03:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not even sure if VOIP and cable telephone counts as part of the
>>> PSTN.
>>
>> I think it probably does, as I understand a not insignificant portion
>> of the PSTN is VOIP-based these days.
>
> Well, again, I'm just talking about the client endpoints. I.e., those
> bits that have phone numbers as such. I know a lot of voice traffic
> between switches is carried on VOIP at this point.
True; it would be interesting, for example, to know if my work number
counts as part of the PTSN; all of us in the office have VOIP phones
(mine is remote to the office switch most of the time) - from the trunk's
perspective, though, I don't think it knows one way or the other.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> True; it would be interesting, for example, to know if my work number
> counts as part of the PTSN;
Yes, it does. If you have a phone number, you're part of the PSTN. If it
shares phone numbers with other phones (and you have to dial an extension or
something, or "dial 9 for an outside line and maybe get a busy signal"),
then it's still part of the PSTN, it's just all behind one phone number.
> all of us in the office have VOIP phones
> (mine is remote to the office switch most of the time) - from the trunk's
> perspective, though, I don't think it knows one way or the other.
It has to know how to route your call to the rest of the network.
--
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 16:00:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> True; it would be interesting, for example, to know if my work number
>> counts as part of the PTSN;
>
> Yes, it does. If you have a phone number, you're part of the PSTN. If
> it shares phone numbers with other phones (and you have to dial an
> extension or something, or "dial 9 for an outside line and maybe get a
> busy signal"), then it's still part of the PSTN, it's just all behind
> one phone number.
Makes sense, I thought that probably was the case.
>> all of us in the office have VOIP phones (mine is remote to the office
>> switch most of the time) - from the trunk's perspective, though, I
>> don't think it knows one way or the other.
>
> It has to know how to route your call to the rest of the network.
Yep.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Well that's news to me...
>
> You don't understand that ISDN carries phone calls as part of its
> Integrated Services?
>
> You didn't read the first paragraph of the wikipedia page I looked up
> for you?
I was under the impression that the digital part of the system connects
to only one destination.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I was under the impression that the digital part of the system connects
> to only one destination.
It's *all* digital.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
