Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   NZ Computing (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f47-nz-computing.html)
-   -   Circuit-Switched vs Packet-Switched (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t665760-circuit-switched-vs-packet-switched.html)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro 01-16-2009 01:07 AM

Circuit-Switched vs Packet-Switched
 
The packet-switchers have won.

<http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=11496>

news2.thing@gmail.com 01-16-2009 08:18 AM

Re: Circuit-Switched vs Packet-Switched
 
On Jan 16, 2:07*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> The packet-switchers have won.
>
> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=11496>


It was lost years ago....the pricing differential was and is the
telcos downfall, a packet is a packet no matter what is inside
it...Telcos might claim otherwise but no one listens....

regards

Thing

Richard 01-16-2009 10:17 AM

Re: Circuit-Switched vs Packet-Switched
 
news2.thing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> The packet-switchers have won.
>>
>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=11496>

>
> It was lost years ago....the pricing differential was and is the
> telcos downfall, a packet is a packet no matter what is inside
> it...Telcos might claim otherwise but no one listens....


The thing is with QOS etc you are virtually at the stage where you are
setting up a circuit with the reservation of bandwidth for the voip etc.
Sure, its easier for it to be used by something else when there is no
voip call present, but they are not "just packets" as the internet was
when IP was first invented.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro 01-16-2009 08:46 PM

Re: Circuit-Switched vs Packet-Switched
 
In message <gkpmp7$9iq$3@news.albasani.net>, Richard wrote:

> The thing is with QOS etc you are virtually at the stage where you are
> setting up a circuit with the reservation of bandwidth for the voip etc.


QoS doesn't necessarily mean bandwidth reservation. An application like VoIP
is "lumpy", anyway, so reserving fixed bandwidth for it is wasteful.
Instead it's all about priorities: better to lose a VoIP packet altogether
than to deliver it late.

news2.thing@gmail.com 01-18-2009 08:48 PM

Re: Circuit-Switched vs Packet-Switched
 
On Jan 16, 11:17*pm, Richard <r...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> news2.th...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 2:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> The packet-switchers have won.

>
> >> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=11496>

>
> > It was lost years ago....the pricing differential was and is the
> > telcos downfall, a packet is a packet no matter what is inside
> > it...Telcos might claim otherwise but no one listens....

>
> The thing is with QOS etc you are virtually at the stage where you are
> setting up a circuit with the reservation of bandwidth for the voip etc.
> Sure, its easier for it to be used by something else when there is no
> voip call present, but they are not "just packets" as the internet was
> when IP was first invented.


telcos have been packet sharing for years....they just break the
multiple voice into segments and squirt it down the pipe....

All that has really happened is this tech has got to us the end
consumer.

regards

Thing


news2.thing@gmail.com 01-18-2009 08:54 PM

Re: Circuit-Switched vs Packet-Switched
 
On Jan 17, 9:46*am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <gkpmp7$9i...@news.albasani.net>, Richard wrote:
>
> > The thing is with QOS etc you are virtually at the stage where you are
> > setting up a circuit with the reservation of bandwidth for the voip etc..

>
> QoS doesn't necessarily mean bandwidth reservation. An application like VoIP
> is "lumpy", anyway, so reserving fixed bandwidth for it is wasteful.
> Instead it's all about priorities: better to lose a VoIP packet altogether
> than to deliver it late.


QoS generally is a rip off IMHO....What it does is prioritize some
packets at the expense of others, except there is an overhead to pay
and the non-prioritized traffic pays it....Cisco love it as they get
to sell more powerful routers which cost a shed load more.....instead
its usually cheaper to activate the massive amount of un-used fibre
that's been laid....except of course ISPs get to sell a "value-added"
service at a premium...."Not happy with your non-prioritized traffic
preformance sir? not a problem we can upgraded it to a QoS for only a
small extra charge...."

Its one huge scam....

regards

Thing






oneofus 01-19-2009 12:31 AM

Re: Circuit-Switched vs Packet-Switched
 
news2.thing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 17, 9:46 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message <gkpmp7$9i...@news.albasani.net>, Richard wrote:
>>
>>> The thing is with QOS etc you are virtually at the stage where you are
>>> setting up a circuit with the reservation of bandwidth for the voip etc.

>> QoS doesn't necessarily mean bandwidth reservation. An application like VoIP
>> is "lumpy", anyway, so reserving fixed bandwidth for it is wasteful.
>> Instead it's all about priorities: better to lose a VoIP packet altogether
>> than to deliver it late.

>
> QoS generally is a rip off IMHO....What it does is prioritize some
> packets at the expense of others, except there is an overhead to pay
> and the non-prioritized traffic pays it....Cisco love it as they get
> to sell more powerful routers which cost a shed load more.....instead
> its usually cheaper to activate the massive amount of un-used fibre
> that's been laid....except of course ISPs get to sell a "value-added"
> service at a premium...."Not happy with your non-prioritized traffic
> preformance sir? not a problem we can upgraded it to a QoS for only a
> small extra charge...."
>
> Its one huge scam....
>
> regards
>
> Thing
>
>

We use QoS switches to combine Cobranet multi channel audio traffic with
TCP/IP control.
You might have applications where it is a scam IYHO, but it works for me.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro 01-19-2009 12:40 AM

Re: Circuit-Switched vs Packet-Switched
 
In message
<7d4fe442-6e50-4563-a48c-f96cfbb0f5f2@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
news2.thing@gmail.com wrote:

> telcos have been packet sharing for years....


In the early days of the development of packet-switching technologies,
AT&T's telephone engineers were adamant it would never work.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.