michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michel Py) wrote on 16.11.04 in <DD7FE473A8C3C245ADA2A2FE1709D90B0DB487@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the > >> network that's really out there, not the network some > >> of us wish were there. > > > grenville armitage wrote: > > I imagine any number of circuit-switching Telco-types > > said much the same thing to the emerging packet-switching > > fanatics 30+ years ago. And I know B-ISDN types said the > > same to "Internet fanatics" 15+ years ago. > > I think you missed the point. As of today, IPv6 is in the same situation > ISDN has always been: > > I Still Don't Need. > ^ ^ ^ ^ Whereas I have used ISDN for over a decade now, and so have enough Germans that it's been very many years that pretty much every BBS switched to support ISDN. I hear you still use 56k Modems in the US. When people switched to ISDN 64k over here, "fast" typically was 14.4k. It's been quite a while since I last used a modem ... 80's tech. > ISDN which 10 years ago was supposed to be the digital miracle that > would save us from the analog crap and take over the world ... well, over here that is pretty much exactly what happened ... >never took > off because the price was not worth the gain, Aah. Capitalism at work, eh? Over here, a standard ISDN line (two channels, three numbers) costs pretty much exactly the same as two analog lines (two channels, two numbers), and always has. Makes for a slightly different cost equation. >the majority of phones and > dial-up still are analog and now ISDN costs _more_ than DSL or cable for > low-end data. That's just ridiculous. MfG Kai _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf