IPv6 news

Wed Oct 19 13:39:33 UTC 2005

> Survey says...  BZZZZZT.

Yaur argument is fallacious.

> Read about SS7 LNP implementation before speaking, please.

I never said anything about SS7 implementation of LNP.

> They are very different creatures.  Something that resembles telephony 
LNP
> will not scale to the quantity of micro-streams currently used by WWW
> applications.  The reason it works (FSVO "works") for telephony is 
because,
> unlike TCP streams, telephone circuits are comparatively large streams 
with
> much longer keepalive times.

This is a strawman argument. I certainly agree with what
you have said about TCP streams versus calls on the PSTN
but that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was 
talking about.

Why is it that whenever people suggest that the IP networking
world can learn from the experience of the telephony world,
some people assume that the proposal is to imitate the telephony
world in every detail?

The fact is that both worlds are completely different in the
details. But these different details lead the telephony world
to make different technology choices and then gain real world
operational experience with those choices. As the IP world 
evolves and changes (remember this started with a discussion 
of IPv6) it is possible that some of the hard-won experience
from the telephony world can be applied in the IP world. No doubt
it will be necessary to implement things differently in the IP
world because of the details. But it is crazy to reject the
hard won experience of the telephony world wholesale just because
you worship at the temple of IP.

In any case, the telephony world owns and runs the Internet
today. Bellhead and nethead arguments belong in the past.
Today's bellheads are running IP networks and VoIP along
with all the PDH, SDH, X.25, SS7, ATM, Frame Relay etc.

--Michael Dillon