[Gllug] Screen I just have to share

[John Hearns]

On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 13:39, Vincent AE Scott wrote:
>
> 
> its the old addage of 'you get what you pay for'.  as long as you can
> offset the 'cost' of downtime against the savings over a LL then its not
> really a problem.
> 
> something tells me, that it'd be in the interest of large providers to
> offer an inferior service on *dsl.  to help protect their more lucrative
> and expensive services.  so no change there then, history is once again
> repeating itself.
> 
> looking forward tho, i'd expect the QoS of *dsl to improve.  

The phrase QoS makes me a bit misty eyed, being and old-time
ATM guy. 

once a
> technology reaches the mass market enough people will come to accept it
> as a guaranteed service.  one thats always available.  think about how
> no one these days expects to have an unreliable telephone.  
That's what we used to say about ATM networking -
"Hey - this stuff is being brought to you by the telcos,
with telco-grade equipment, and a protocol which supports QoS
natively". The idea being that you would have voice, data and IP
traffic all coming to you on the one pipe.
And reliability the same as the phone system.

But it wasn't to be. Booh hoo...


One thing that struck me as amusing, though.
Anyone else see the Register story on fault resilient
IP networks:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/5/25276.html

I remember seeing the FORE systems 'networks of steel' demo years ago.
Actor bloke off the telly was hired by them to do trade show demos.
Made up a meshed network of ATM switches (could be quite complicated).
Sends a video stream between two endpoints.
Saws a set of fibres up with a chainsaw - and there is only a flicker
on the TV screen.
(Sadly I saw this at the NEC, where they were too cheap to bring
in the chainsaw, and just pulled out the fibres).






-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug