[LINK] There goes the neighbourhood...

Kim Holburn kim at holburn.net
Wed May 11 22:47:04 AEST 2011


On 2011/May/11, at 10:13 PM, Karl Auer wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 20:25 +1000, Kim Holburn wrote:
>>>> The other fault is that they splatter udp connections with lots of
>>>> ports.  Not necessary.
> 
> I've had a look at your references and would counter with yes,
> necessary. The solutions you are talking about are fully fledged VC
> solutions; they need channels for all sorts of stuff. They need to set
> up separate connections to carry data of various sorts, so that those
> connections can be managed independently of each other, so that they can
> have appropriate shaping applied independently of each other, and so
> that each can rely on the network for the services it requires (like
> reliability in the case of TCP).

Nice point although what networks can really do and can guarantee that sort of shaping end to end?  

> Separate connections also allow the
> streams to be handled by separate devices if necessary.
> 
> Of course you could develop your own complicated multiplexing inside a
> single stream (and some codecs do that, partly) but you lose all of the
> above flexibility and power.

Well yes.  I expect these protocols were designed when machines weren't fast enough to multiplex this stuff real time.  Skype is proof that they are easily fast enough these days even using an inappropriate protocol.

> Personal VC, like Skype or some open standard, is far less demanding.

I've used various professional videoconferencing units over the years and and various software versions and I'm not sure they're so much better than skype (given decent hardware at both ends) and definitely not as easy to use.

>> It might be OK with known router hardware setups but trying to do port
>> forwarding at home with a home-brand router can be tricky.
> 
> Indeed it can be. What luck that we will shortly be rid of the NAT that
> has made it necessary.
> 
>> Here is a discussion of the ip address in data issue:
> 
> The discussion shows only that NAT is a pain.

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request 













More information about the Link mailing list