Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #4551 > unrolled thread

routing

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking

Contents

  routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-01 15:53 +0000
    Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-01 18:31 +0200
      Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-01 22:30 +0000
        Re: routing "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-02 14:50 +0200
          Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-02 19:54 +0000
      Re: routing Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> - 2020-06-01 18:35 -0400
        Re: routing "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-06-01 19:00 -0400
          Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-02 02:18 +0200
            Re: routing "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-06-01 20:32 -0400
              Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-02 08:12 +0200
                Re: routing "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-02 14:54 +0200
                  Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-02 15:53 +0200
                    Re: routing "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-06-02 11:19 -0400
                    Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-02 21:25 +0200
                    Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:44 -0700
                      Re: routing Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-05 17:31 +0000
                        Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 09:20 -0700
                    Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:46 -0700
                Re: routing "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-06-02 09:38 -0400
                  Re: routing Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-02 16:21 +0000
                    Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-02 21:15 +0200
                    Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-02 21:36 +0200
                  Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:48 -0700
                    Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-05 04:54 +0000
            Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-02 21:30 +0200
              Re: routing Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-06-03 13:51 +0300
                Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-03 13:30 +0200
              Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:51 -0700
                Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-05 15:23 +0200
                  Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 00:19 -0700
                    Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-10 17:44 +0000
            Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:41 -0700
              Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-05 04:50 +0000
              Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-05 09:44 +0200
                Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 00:36 -0700
          Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:40 -0700
            Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-05 04:47 +0000
              Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-05 09:53 +0200
              Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 00:41 -0700
                Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-10 12:40 +0200
                  Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 09:25 -0700
                    Re: routing Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-06-12 09:45 +0000
                    Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-12 13:55 +0200
                      Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-12 15:45 +0200
                        Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-12 23:21 +0200
                      Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-12 22:55 -0700
            Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-05 15:34 +0200
              Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 00:45 -0700
                Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-10 12:52 +0200
      Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:35 -0700
        Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-05 15:38 +0200
          Re: routing Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2020-06-05 15:46 +0200
            Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-06 00:00 +0200
          Re: routing Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-06-09 18:57 +0000
            Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-09 21:08 +0200
              Re: routing Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-06-09 22:07 +0000
                Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-10 00:36 +0200
          Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 00:48 -0700
        Re: routing Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2020-06-05 15:45 +0200
    Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-01 22:21 +0000
      Re: routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-02 02:39 +0000
        Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-02 04:30 +0000
          Re: routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-02 12:03 +0000
    Re: routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-02 20:34 +0000
      Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-02 23:08 +0200
      Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-02 21:20 +0000
    Re: routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-05 15:25 +0000
      Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-06 00:02 +0200
        Re: routing Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-06-06 08:04 +0000
          Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-06 12:00 +0200
            Re: routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-06 10:43 +0000
              Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-06 13:35 +0200
                Re: routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-06 12:04 +0000
                  Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-06 20:35 +0200
            Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 00:55 -0700
          Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-06 16:19 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#4569

On 02/06/2020 18:21, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2020-06-02, David W. Hodgins <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> 
>> I don't have, need, or want one. Due to health problems I rarely
>> leave my house, so a mobile phone is just a waste of money.
> 
> My wife and I both have mobiles (mine is a good old flip phone),
> but I use mine primarily for text messages.  We still have our
> land line and have no intention of giving it up.
> 
> One thing nobody has mentioned yet here is that the sound quality
> of cell phones can be truly dreadful.  There's often some sort of
> continual phase shifting distortion to which I'm extremely sensitve.
> Apparently this doesn't bother most people, or there'd be an outcry
> to move to better codecs and less jitter.  But I guess that's just me
> being a curmudegeon again...
> 

I suppose that's just another one of these things that vary from place 
to place.  I know nothing about the mobile systems in Canada, maybe they 
are different from over here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4572

On 02/06/2020 18.21, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2020-06-02, David W. Hodgins <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> 
>> I don't have, need, or want one. Due to health problems I rarely
>> leave my house, so a mobile phone is just a waste of money.
> 
> My wife and I both have mobiles (mine is a good old flip phone),
> but I use mine primarily for text messages.  We still have our
> land line and have no intention of giving it up.
> 
> One thing nobody has mentioned yet here is that the sound quality
> of cell phones can be truly dreadful. 

That's maybe because the digital stream used for POTS is a constant 64 
kbit (52something in the USA/Canada), while the digital stream used for 
mobile uses compression and compaction (say, codecs). Depending on the 
company and what they accept paying for transmission, compression is 
more aggressive and quality deteriorates. They can easily pack 4 
conversations in one 64kbit channel.

This was noticed when trying to send a FAX over a mobile phone (real 
fax, I mean).


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4584

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 6/2/20 6:38 AM, David W. Hodgins wrote:

> 
> I don't have, need, or want one. Due to health problems I rarely leave
> my house,
> so a mobile phone is just a waste of money.
> 
If you think you'll last another 20 years, you better get on the ball..
I love POTS but it is a dying technology. I would be surprised if it
even lasts another 10 years.

Subscriber counts are plummeting.  Once it gets too low, the telcos are
going to pull the plug. You can't keep maintenance yards and crews
operating if you aren't pulling in enough revenue to pay them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4588

On 2020-06-05, Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------2875D911387C17532ACE0508
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On 6/2/20 6:38 AM, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>
>>=20
>> I don't have, need, or want one. Due to health problems I rarely leave
>> my house,
>> so a mobile phone is just a waste of money.
>>=20
> If you think you'll last another 20 years, you better get on the ball..
> I love POTS but it is a dying technology. I would be surprised if it
> even lasts another 10 years.

My home, in Vancouver, has had fibre running to it for 5 years already.
Nowever until yesterday, that fibre was disconnected at both ends. The
landline phone we have is on the old copper wire that was installed 70
years ago or so.
>
 So Yes, all of Vancouver has fibre running to the house. Most of it has
 landlines on the old copper.

>
>
>
>
> --------------2875D911387C17532ACE0508
> Content-Type: application/pgp-keys;
>  name="pEpkey.asc"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>  filename="pEpkey.asc"
>
> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>
> mQGNBF64/IEBDACVrdj4Yfr7PC/t7tBofnMWWDoWiRxl+Oo64YjsamZGiy0hJHfP
> ZhI/pnOgqhy6pzsF/8c9Dx9A9SSAJOvC96wMTHgdh4GbffekCwoIXcKZeg9bjXjV
> Nth5CYOSBTQ9C/pl/j0CwjBQ9mdyK7FoHMlBEmQ4ButtBJgPNjyruiFkBt2r/99u
> w+hZEt+tO3D69v2MBMVF8pjZWzDDoIsbCUQGtaDD4uAIMqdDl28yw5FeYFg7PKLJ
> DXft8pNm/4bWv7BizTEVwSkcpPMR/6v/gXUhUsqCoqaWT9oSALmO5l9JfuNk2mpP
> bjue5joPlpOzaH+ZC0et/eynzyTxOpIAL97g1SVQLqqKRMu3atFda53ZyMNAcH3G
> R1gV5kX1rM3Ajyw1d7hp1rAYINdB/O/Y8VkNn0j6NZmEi8E1AwK3hu4ZJPIr9FQF
> bsWmAtjIgO1VXHxvxB7nYF5o7M350hW9SZlkbDf9NWBUHJlc5j4WVEYCjw1C3y8h
> OwFl1RfDFETqmdUAEQEAAbQrSm9oYW5uIEJlcmV0dGEgPGJlcmV0dGFAbnVuLXlh
> LWJpem5lc3MuY29tPokB1AQTAQgAPhYhBJx2orrQOL31I0cnEBM/4/Zk8Q8TBQJe
> uP0PAhsDBQkB4TOABQsJCAcCBhUKCQgLAgQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEBM/4/Zk8Q8T
> 0KYL/jL1DoQWCMil5EPlLSDG3iByV711VChSpWGbE4m2KrMjMdG0gQBNpg3IChKi
> tP5/5YdxHGKGjuDxvF/laTq/5KXosNmfdaJr9pmztOWT7tvmlwM+zUR782EQJeeU
> rGfv6TwYng7TUEaBH86Rg8m6fMKNqSt9MLly+p48Lv8TNj1RofvMv5Ng5xJWkGJ2
> +yJ6k61h6Xg8OFY/AEs98OMejDKPq2PTZyH1BQKmyDk82wOGUdSkQoA41aZSckki
> aXFXIG97NhXY+dcZbOVCjXez0Iujo4vSCbM+x63fX7FyyNsG4f2vPfqhrqNGgrwD
> KQxYzWgVfvCqKpW6S75l0DfelMFAjM5GcpKs65vRyjRDuMlj6/jSN0O6Os8EOlhr
> lHBoY1PrBwTX+pBgb1esF2KLbFjfxGLzvbfR85TbYaZi/hohwD/rm+s5QWe03pO/
> n85mdVxYAhAhvXsO6s7wfTm0qc/SK7Xp82aYOKVArarNgRIMul7UBo2786ZFhmZY
> wQGPQ7kBjQReuPzOAQwAoWku3K9ipwwiuH/9C8uUqY1kZy9VW/K7b5uXKww43Dl5
> SAFTd+TC8nySqSacHohTQSnd8r3eZgX6az3SR30Y0F6Ftprbx0dkRABKtVzEcxCJ
> Y2+lqfT6aPIQh+tp/mmWVzrmeYlQNFVLNbu0Tk62K0sedfnhDGgqN4DEWQqgGfG5
> Zsj1VcYoXYkt1V/U16GPs75aqWdt+OQmlDb2FQbo/HcsB1bdrE9A7fM39WQpod/k
> tkAZRJM6RX1f2hJAFwgBEKYieK4ZGfMtgxpIMnvBDwB1FuLw2sGshRtaPO8t0F+w
> jR/i6PEwCWZSaENhik+oAxDgaKPkxZHpzYS3RM67HoRie1ewuqAw77xeAI4WLbxo
> +FNg8W+kdPgdRkGeMaYot4hoVGpgF0q0cBPm97wAysxbAu/TDlX/ev4XEkRnZg7k
> ScCVTrkk9bSVIXs0uB8qkudcudrzokZJ+6v+X5JKgwOMBBSY7sk11T3azog6wxJN
> BuqS1wB/H4Kht9OMLoTVABEBAAGJAbwEGAEIACYWIQScdqK60Di99SNHJxATP+P2
> ZPEPEwUCXrj8zgIbDAUJAeEzgAAKCRATP+P2ZPEPE1UNC/sFAMZnLH8OdDwflfhr
> iyESWHhRJb1xC4tlJzZ/ufbWY8SbVqO5HbA7EALwW3Ony8SNRRN/OUBw7bM12VPX
> 0ya6RTQHtPzweL98AnGu0YbyHtKwJrNlGQS0LKWDv4FWQ6f8HxZQt0EzhgRaudGE
> MHNACuKbxWFpvNAM95LNpLDjRE+DJYGnsDOCRRC4fFRTG0+vqIqgniQzHmn8ddr6
> 5NazPg07TJzqLjsNBcTCGvRivoRDRP75PnQS8VppnyWubbXJjffmuIG2iqHnY5as
> ibsSo+TJ+7UEhbNx+uQBKO5KXvG/u9eWgyJz/Uf47zUbG9v9vocbOSbylPHjC3uO
> ONw91nUHLmGzi3ZmeyPeCu6pyjz/dzUcqYS3iw1/q+UWyS+SOIaz9sAMd1q8QQwW
> CKubXtlM6DKdnxxNVV4NkwFIeOF6d1pFiIgojqbsNnkPVaFQDc+u9UkkpevBymwr
> a0HThxeNkYA6MDWSbxJjPvyy1OO2yERbo9RG2jzOx85j29o=3D
>=3Dd5t3
> -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>
> --------------2875D911387C17532ACE0508--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4571

On 02/06/2020 02.18, David Brown wrote:
> On 02/06/2020 01:00, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2020 18:35:56 -0400, Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/1/20 12:31 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 01/06/2020 17:53, Bob Tennent wrote:
>>>>> I need a low-latency connection to a colleague in the
>>>>> same city (Kingston Ont.) but who has a different ISP.
>>
>> The easiest way would be for both of you to get old fashioned modems, and
>> create a direct link between the two computers, using land line telephone
>> connections.
>>
> 
> Do you still have these?  Here in Norway, only small outlying villages 
> still have analogue telephone lines, and most of these are being 
> disbanded.  In my town (about 1000 households) we have had fibre for 
> internet, TV and telephone (for those, like us, that still have a 
> "house" telephone and not just mobiles) for about a decade.

I wonder if it would be possible to send packets riding on the VOiP 
digital connection, emulating "voice", but sent digitally. This would 
get rid of most of the delay, because being "voice" a noticeable delay 
is not acceptable.

Ie, a sort of ISDN.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4577

On 2.6.20 22:30, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 02/06/2020 02.18, David Brown wrote:
>> On 02/06/2020 01:00, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2020 18:35:56 -0400, Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/1/20 12:31 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 01/06/2020 17:53, Bob Tennent wrote:
>>>>>> I need a low-latency connection to a colleague in the
>>>>>> same city (Kingston Ont.) but who has a different ISP.
>>>
>>> The easiest way would be for both of you to get old fashioned modems, 
>>> and
>>> create a direct link between the two computers, using land line 
>>> telephone
>>> connections.
>>>
>>
>> Do you still have these?  Here in Norway, only small outlying villages 
>> still have analogue telephone lines, and most of these are being 
>> disbanded.  In my town (about 1000 households) we have had fibre for 
>> internet, TV and telephone (for those, like us, that still have a 
>> "house" telephone and not just mobiles) for about a decade.
> 
> I wonder if it would be possible to send packets riding on the VOiP 
> digital connection, emulating "voice", but sent digitally. This would 
> get rid of most of the delay, because being "voice" a noticeable delay 
> is not acceptable.
> 
> Ie, a sort of ISDN.


For VoIP you may need to stay with the 0 - 300 bit/s asynchronous
FSK modems. The faster speeds (and more so ISDN) need to preserve
the phase of the stream better than can be expected of VoIP.

It is a bit like RFC 2549 and RFC 1149, IP over Avian Carriers,
it may succeed, but needs time.

-- 

-TV

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4578

On 03/06/2020 12.51, Tauno Voipio wrote:
> On 2.6.20 22:30, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 02/06/2020 02.18, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 02/06/2020 01:00, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2020 18:35:56 -0400, Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/1/20 12:31 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/06/2020 17:53, Bob Tennent wrote:
>>>>>>> I need a low-latency connection to a colleague in the
>>>>>>> same city (Kingston Ont.) but who has a different ISP.
>>>>
>>>> The easiest way would be for both of you to get old fashioned 
>>>> modems, and
>>>> create a direct link between the two computers, using land line 
>>>> telephone
>>>> connections.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you still have these?  Here in Norway, only small outlying 
>>> villages still have analogue telephone lines, and most of these are 
>>> being disbanded.  In my town (about 1000 households) we have had 
>>> fibre for internet, TV and telephone (for those, like us, that still 
>>> have a "house" telephone and not just mobiles) for about a decade.
>>
>> I wonder if it would be possible to send packets riding on the VOiP 
>> digital connection, emulating "voice", but sent digitally. This would 
>> get rid of most of the delay, because being "voice" a noticeable delay 
>> is not acceptable.
>>
>> Ie, a sort of ISDN.
> 
> 
> For VoIP you may need to stay with the 0 - 300 bit/s asynchronous
> FSK modems. The faster speeds (and more so ISDN) need to preserve
> the phase of the stream better than can be expected of VoIP.
> 
> It is a bit like RFC 2549 and RFC 1149, IP over Avian Carriers,
> it may succeed, but needs time.

Yes, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying to alter a codec so 
that the binary stream is sent directly by the codec, without using 
sound at any step. But the system would treat is as sound, a real time 
stream, and latency would be minimal.

Which is the kind of trick used by V92 modems.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4585

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 6/2/20 12:30 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> 
> I wonder if it would be possible to send packets riding on the VOiP
> digital connection, emulating "voice", but sent digitally. This would
> get rid of most of the delay, because being "voice" a noticeable delay
> is not acceptable.
> 
> Ie, a sort of ISDN.
> 
> 

What? converting to "voice"  isn't going to change the route his packets
are taking...  His path is 1000 miles (or km - I forget which he said)..
There is nothing HE can do, short of setting up his own link or changing
ISPs that is going to change that.


Go back and reread what you typed....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4591

On 05/06/2020 05.51, Johann Beretta wrote:
> On 6/2/20 12:30 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>>
>> I wonder if it would be possible to send packets riding on the VOiP
>> digital connection, emulating "voice", but sent digitally. This would
>> get rid of most of the delay, because being "voice" a noticeable delay
>> is not acceptable.
>>
>> Ie, a sort of ISDN.
>>
>>
> 
> What? converting to "voice"  isn't going to change the route his packets
> are taking...

You do not know... In theory, voice traffic is given higher priority.

>  His path is 1000 miles (or km - I forget which he said)..
> There is nothing HE can do, short of setting up his own link or changing
> ISPs that is going to change that.
> 
> 
> Go back and reread what you typed....
> 

You go back and think what I meant - I'm not that good as expressing 
what I mean :-)

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4612

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 6/5/20 6:23 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 05/06/2020 05.51, Johann Beretta wrote:
>> On 6/2/20 12:30 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if it would be possible to send packets riding on the VOiP
>>> digital connection, emulating "voice", but sent digitally. This would
>>> get rid of most of the delay, because being "voice" a noticeable delay
>>> is not acceptable.
>>>
>>> Ie, a sort of ISDN.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What? converting to "voice"  isn't going to change the route his packets
>> are taking...
> 
> You do not know... In theory, voice traffic is given higher priority.
> 

I do know. The distance / path is going to remain the same, and not
everyone gives a higher priority to voice.

Your idea will NOT get rid of MOST of the delay because you don't know
what the majority of the delay is, so we must assume (short of evidence
otherwise) that the majority is distance as that is the only information
we have at this time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4622

On 2020-06-10, Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------BF76E75D8A66BFACC312DEEA
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On 6/5/20 6:23 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 05/06/2020 05.51, Johann Beretta wrote:
>>> On 6/2/20 12:30 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if it would be possible to send packets riding on the VOiP
>>>> digital connection, emulating "voice", but sent digitally. This would=
>
>>>> get rid of most of the delay, because being "voice" a noticeable dela=
> y
>>>> is not acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> Ie, a sort of ISDN.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What? converting to "voice"=C2=A0 isn't going to change the route his =
> packets
>>> are taking...
>>=20
>> You do not know... In theory, voice traffic is given higher priority.
>>=20
>
> I do know. The distance / path is going to remain the same, and not
> everyone gives a higher priority to voice.
>
> Your idea will NOT get rid of MOST of the delay because you don't know
> what the majority of the delay is, so we must assume (short of evidence
> otherwise) that the majority is distance as that is the only information
> we have at this time.
>
the distance is roughly 1000 km. That is a delay of roughly 3 ms,(or 5
if we take into account the refractive index of fibre) not
more than 40 ms. Most of the delay is NOT distance. It may well be
internal delays in routers, etc. but as you say we do not really have
the information to decide.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4581

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 6/1/20 5:18 PM, David Brown wrote:

> 
> Do you still have these?  Here in Norway, only small outlying villages
> still have analogue telephone lines, and most of these are being
> disbanded.  In my town (about 1000 households) we have had fibre for
> internet, TV and telephone (for those, like us, that still have a
> "house" telephone and not just mobiles) for about a decade.
> 
> 

It's a lot harder to wire up the second largest country on Earth
(Canada) with fiber to everywhere..  When your country is the size of a
postage stamp (no offense) it's a hell of a lot easier.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4587

On 2020-06-05, Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/1/20 5:18 PM, David Brown wrote:
>
>>=20
>> Do you still have these?=C2=A0 Here in Norway, only small outlying vill=
> ages
>> still have analogue telephone lines, and most of these are being
>> disbanded.=C2=A0 In my town (about 1000 households) we have had fibre f=
> or
>> internet, TV and telephone (for those, like us, that still have a
>> "house" telephone and not just mobiles) for about a decade.
>>=20
>>=20
>
> It's a lot harder to wire up the second largest country on Earth
> (Canada) with fiber to everywhere..  When your country is the size of a
> postage stamp (no offense) it's a hell of a lot easier.

Except it has been done at least for most of the cities (and Kingston is
one). The OP never suggested that he was trying to jam with somone in
Inuvik.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4589

On 05/06/2020 05:41, Johann Beretta wrote:
> On 6/1/20 5:18 PM, David Brown wrote:
> 
>>
>> Do you still have these?  Here in Norway, only small outlying villages
>> still have analogue telephone lines, and most of these are being
>> disbanded.  In my town (about 1000 households) we have had fibre for
>> internet, TV and telephone (for those, like us, that still have a
>> "house" telephone and not just mobiles) for about a decade.
>>
>>
> 
> It's a lot harder to wire up the second largest country on Earth
> (Canada) with fiber to everywhere..  When your country is the size of a
> postage stamp (no offense) it's a hell of a lot easier.
> 

Norway is 1752 km long, and has the second longest coastline (after 
Canada!) of any country in the world.  Much of its length is very thin 
and mountainous, and the coast is characterised by deep fjords, islands, 
mountains and very solid rock.  Inland in the north is a huge expanse of 
very sparsely populated area with little but reindeer herds and 
mosquitoes.  Even in the southern part, towns are mostly small - it's 
only around the capital that there is a high population density.

So I think your "postage stamp" comment (no offence was taken) is based 
on a lack of knowledge of the country.  (And no offence is meant there - 
there is no particular reason why a Canadian would know much about the 
geography of Norway.)

I think, in fact, Canada and Norway would have a fair amount of 
similarity in the physical challenges for wiring or fibering.  There are 
very long distances, lots of areas with spares population (making the 
economics hard), tough winters, ragged coasts with islands, etc.

Not all parts of Norway have fibre to houses.  But there are few 
populated places that don't have good (4G) mobile networks as an 
alternative.  Analogue lines are being turned off over most of the country.

One thing we have that other countries typically don't, is positive 
discrimination for outlying areas combined with controlled monopolies 
for network operators.  So if a fibre company wants to connections to 
people in a town (for internet, TV and telephone), they need to get 
permission from the authorities.  They get a monopoly on the town, which 
makes it much more efficient for them, and it means that the streets get 
dug up once, not a dozen times by different companies.  But after a set 
time (3 years, or something like that) they must offer the fibres for 
lease to other ISP's for the same price as they use internally - the 
monopoly is time limited.  And in return for getting access to the town, 
they will be required to lay fibre to a number of smaller and more 
outlying places within the next couple of years.  Considered separately, 
it would not be cost-effective for them to lay fibre to the small places 
- considered as part of a larger deal, it is fine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4613

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 6/5/20 12:44 AM, David Brown wrote:

> Norway is 1752 km long, and has the second longest coastline (after Canada!) of any country in the world. 

> 
> So I think your "postage stamp" comment (no offence was taken) is based
> on a lack of knowledge of the country.  (And no offence is meant there -
> there is no particular reason why a Canadian would know much about the
> geography of Norway.)
> 

I was exaggerating for effect. I know what Norway looks like on the
globe.  Why you want to drag in coastline is beyond me..  I suspect to
somehow imply it is larger than it is...

Norway is 385,170 km2.
Canada is 9,984,670 km2

Do those two numbers even look remotely fucking similar? Canada is 25
TIMES larger.

I'm not a Canadian, I'm a Californian. (A state that is, by the way,
significantly larger than Norway at 423,970 km2.


> I think, in fact, Canada and Norway would have a fair amount of
> similarity in the physical challenges for wiring or fibering.  There are
> very long distances, lots of areas with spares population (making the
> economics hard), tough winters, ragged coasts with islands, etc.

You think the physical challenges would be similar for a country twenty
five times as large?  Care to share what you are smoking?
> 
> Not all parts of Norway have fibre to houses.  But there are few
> populated places that don't have good (4G) mobile networks as an
> alternative.  Analogue lines are being turned off over most of the country.

Great.. As I said, that's a hell of a lot easier when your country is
SMALL.  Canada's population is a mere 6 times as large.. With 25 times
the area.. It's harder for them.. Towns are much further apart,
distances are MUCH greater, the geography is more extreme. The Canadian
Rockies, alone, comprise 194,000 km2 (about 1/2 the size of Norway).
That's for a single mountain system / range.

I'm not trying to shit on your country or anything, I'm just amazed
you'd imply that the two countries are even remotely similar geographically.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4580

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 6/1/20 4:00 PM, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2020 18:35:56 -0400, Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/1/20 12:31 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2020 17:53, Bob Tennent wrote:
>>>> I need a low-latency connection to a colleague in the
>>>> same city (Kingston Ont.) but who has a different ISP.
> 
> The easiest way would be for both of you to get old fashioned modems, and
> create a direct link between the two computers, using land line telephone
> connections.
> 
> Regards, Dave Hodgins
> 

Yeah..Because 56.6K is going to be useful..   That's, quite possibly,
the dumbest suggestion anyone could have made..

The simple speed delay as one modem converts electrical impulses to
audio, back to electrical, through the phone lines, back to audio, and
then back to electrical is going to take a FUCKTON more time than his
1000 mile current trip.

Now toss in the delay of sending data at 56.6 kilobits per second (best
possible speed)....

He could throw the data on a thumbdrive and drive it to the destination
and it would be hundreds (if not thousands) of times faster.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4586

On 2020-06-05, Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------A5E4BFF1E8B185A3A649FBE9
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On 6/1/20 4:00 PM, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2020 18:35:56 -0400, Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> wro=
> te:
>>=20
>>> On 6/1/20 12:31 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 01/06/2020 17:53, Bob Tennent wrote:
>>>>> I need a low-latency connection to a colleague in the
>>>>> same city (Kingston Ont.) but who has a different ISP.
>>=20
>> The easiest way would be for both of you to get old fashioned modems, a=
> nd
>> create a direct link between the two computers, using land line telepho=
> ne
>> connections.
>>=20
>> Regards, Dave Hodgins
>>=20
>
> Yeah..Because 56.6K is going to be useful..   That's, quite possibly,
> the dumbest suggestion anyone could have made..

Since at that point the author had not told us what it was he wanted to
do, the suggestion was NOT stupid. He was worried about delays, and
speed to getting a bit from the instrument to the computer at the other
end on a modem is small. Plus one can always compress the audio, so that
6KB/s is not that bad-- not super hifi I agree, but better than a
straight phone line. 
>
> The simple speed delay as one modem converts electrical impulses to
> audio, back to electrical, through the phone lines, back to audio, and
> then back to electrical is going to take a FUCKTON more time than his
> 1000 mile current trip.

Since all of those conversions HAVE to take place anyway, the only
difference is the bandwidth (the 56Kb/s-- and besides phone modems can
do better than 56Kb)
>
> Now toss in the delay of sending data at 56.6 kilobits per second (best
> possible speed)....
>
> He could throw the data on a thumbdrive and drive it to the destination
> and it would be hundreds (if not thousands) of times faster.

Uh, no, and the delay then is hours (you have to finish playing the
piece before you can drive the thumb drive containing that piece over).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------A5E4BFF1E8B185A3A649FBE9
> Content-Type: application/pgp-keys;
>  name="pEpkey.asc"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>  filename="pEpkey.asc"
>
> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>
> mQGNBF64/IEBDACVrdj4Yfr7PC/t7tBofnMWWDoWiRxl+Oo64YjsamZGiy0hJHfP
> ZhI/pnOgqhy6pzsF/8c9Dx9A9SSAJOvC96wMTHgdh4GbffekCwoIXcKZeg9bjXjV
> Nth5CYOSBTQ9C/pl/j0CwjBQ9mdyK7FoHMlBEmQ4ButtBJgPNjyruiFkBt2r/99u
> w+hZEt+tO3D69v2MBMVF8pjZWzDDoIsbCUQGtaDD4uAIMqdDl28yw5FeYFg7PKLJ
> DXft8pNm/4bWv7BizTEVwSkcpPMR/6v/gXUhUsqCoqaWT9oSALmO5l9JfuNk2mpP
> bjue5joPlpOzaH+ZC0et/eynzyTxOpIAL97g1SVQLqqKRMu3atFda53ZyMNAcH3G
> R1gV5kX1rM3Ajyw1d7hp1rAYINdB/O/Y8VkNn0j6NZmEi8E1AwK3hu4ZJPIr9FQF
> bsWmAtjIgO1VXHxvxB7nYF5o7M350hW9SZlkbDf9NWBUHJlc5j4WVEYCjw1C3y8h
> OwFl1RfDFETqmdUAEQEAAbQrSm9oYW5uIEJlcmV0dGEgPGJlcmV0dGFAbnVuLXlh
> LWJpem5lc3MuY29tPokB1AQTAQgAPhYhBJx2orrQOL31I0cnEBM/4/Zk8Q8TBQJe
> uP0PAhsDBQkB4TOABQsJCAcCBhUKCQgLAgQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEBM/4/Zk8Q8T
> 0KYL/jL1DoQWCMil5EPlLSDG3iByV711VChSpWGbE4m2KrMjMdG0gQBNpg3IChKi
> tP5/5YdxHGKGjuDxvF/laTq/5KXosNmfdaJr9pmztOWT7tvmlwM+zUR782EQJeeU
> rGfv6TwYng7TUEaBH86Rg8m6fMKNqSt9MLly+p48Lv8TNj1RofvMv5Ng5xJWkGJ2
> +yJ6k61h6Xg8OFY/AEs98OMejDKPq2PTZyH1BQKmyDk82wOGUdSkQoA41aZSckki
> aXFXIG97NhXY+dcZbOVCjXez0Iujo4vSCbM+x63fX7FyyNsG4f2vPfqhrqNGgrwD
> KQxYzWgVfvCqKpW6S75l0DfelMFAjM5GcpKs65vRyjRDuMlj6/jSN0O6Os8EOlhr
> lHBoY1PrBwTX+pBgb1esF2KLbFjfxGLzvbfR85TbYaZi/hohwD/rm+s5QWe03pO/
> n85mdVxYAhAhvXsO6s7wfTm0qc/SK7Xp82aYOKVArarNgRIMul7UBo2786ZFhmZY
> wQGPQ7kBjQReuPzOAQwAoWku3K9ipwwiuH/9C8uUqY1kZy9VW/K7b5uXKww43Dl5
> SAFTd+TC8nySqSacHohTQSnd8r3eZgX6az3SR30Y0F6Ftprbx0dkRABKtVzEcxCJ
> Y2+lqfT6aPIQh+tp/mmWVzrmeYlQNFVLNbu0Tk62K0sedfnhDGgqN4DEWQqgGfG5
> Zsj1VcYoXYkt1V/U16GPs75aqWdt+OQmlDb2FQbo/HcsB1bdrE9A7fM39WQpod/k
> tkAZRJM6RX1f2hJAFwgBEKYieK4ZGfMtgxpIMnvBDwB1FuLw2sGshRtaPO8t0F+w
> jR/i6PEwCWZSaENhik+oAxDgaKPkxZHpzYS3RM67HoRie1ewuqAw77xeAI4WLbxo
> +FNg8W+kdPgdRkGeMaYot4hoVGpgF0q0cBPm97wAysxbAu/TDlX/ev4XEkRnZg7k
> ScCVTrkk9bSVIXs0uB8qkudcudrzokZJ+6v+X5JKgwOMBBSY7sk11T3azog6wxJN
> BuqS1wB/H4Kht9OMLoTVABEBAAGJAbwEGAEIACYWIQScdqK60Di99SNHJxATP+P2
> ZPEPEwUCXrj8zgIbDAUJAeEzgAAKCRATP+P2ZPEPE1UNC/sFAMZnLH8OdDwflfhr
> iyESWHhRJb1xC4tlJzZ/ufbWY8SbVqO5HbA7EALwW3Ony8SNRRN/OUBw7bM12VPX
> 0ya6RTQHtPzweL98AnGu0YbyHtKwJrNlGQS0LKWDv4FWQ6f8HxZQt0EzhgRaudGE
> MHNACuKbxWFpvNAM95LNpLDjRE+DJYGnsDOCRRC4fFRTG0+vqIqgniQzHmn8ddr6
> 5NazPg07TJzqLjsNBcTCGvRivoRDRP75PnQS8VppnyWubbXJjffmuIG2iqHnY5as
> ibsSo+TJ+7UEhbNx+uQBKO5KXvG/u9eWgyJz/Uf47zUbG9v9vocbOSbylPHjC3uO
> ONw91nUHLmGzi3ZmeyPeCu6pyjz/dzUcqYS3iw1/q+UWyS+SOIaz9sAMd1q8QQwW
> CKubXtlM6DKdnxxNVV4NkwFIeOF6d1pFiIgojqbsNnkPVaFQDc+u9UkkpevBymwr
> a0HThxeNkYA6MDWSbxJjPvyy1OO2yERbo9RG2jzOx85j29o=3D
>=3Dd5t3
> -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>
> --------------A5E4BFF1E8B185A3A649FBE9--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4590

On 05/06/2020 06:47, William Unruh wrote:

> Since all of those conversions HAVE to take place anyway, the only
> difference is the bandwidth (the 56Kb/s-- and besides phone modems can
> do better than 56Kb)

No, phone modems on analogue lines can't do better than 56 kb - it comes 
from the sampling rates used by the POTS systems.  And even then, you 
only get that downstream from an ISP - upstream you are limited to 33.6 
kbit.  (These are the theoretical maximal rates here.)  For a 
person-to-person modem link, /both/ are "upstream" links so 33.6 kbit is 
the most you will get in each direction.

Modem connections that appear faster than 56 kbps are done by 
compression, which these days is generally done on the server and client 
rather than the modem.

(I have no idea whether a 33 kbps direct modem link would suit the OP's 
needs, or whether it would have more or less latency than the internet 
connection.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4614

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 6/4/20 9:47 PM, William Unruh wrote:

> 
> Since all of those conversions HAVE to take place anyway, the only
> difference is the bandwidth (the 56Kb/s-- and besides phone modems can
> do better than 56Kb)
>>

Baloney.  56kb/s is the best you can hope to do with the analog phone
system.  ISDN can go faster, but that's not analog.

I worked for AT&T for a long time and could explain WHY that's the hard
limit, but for the sake of brevity....

Even then, 56k is the best you can hope for. You're only going to see
that if your lines are exceptionally clean and you're fairly close to
the central office.  In reality, 33.6k is about the best you can
reasonably EXPECT to get. Anything faster is a bonus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4618

On 10/06/2020 09.41, Johann Beretta wrote:
> On 6/4/20 9:47 PM, William Unruh wrote:
> 
>>
>> Since all of those conversions HAVE to take place anyway, the only
>> difference is the bandwidth (the 56Kb/s-- and besides phone modems can
>> do better than 56Kb)
>>>
> 
> Baloney.  56kb/s is the best you can hope to do with the analog phone
> system.  ISDN can go faster, but that's not analog.
> 
> I worked for AT&T for a long time and could explain WHY that's the hard
> limit, but for the sake of brevity....

You are not the only one here that worked for a telco.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking

csiph-web