[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

RE: real-time digital protocols


> Um, "H.323-compliant vs. NetMeeting"

Well, NM _is_ H.323 compliant - you can be H.323 without supporting the
optional multicasting bit.

The problem is that in order to make NM suppport any multicasting bit you'd
need to rewrite the whole underlying NM network interface - I couldn't find
an obvious way to re-use the existing H.323 bits.

It's probably irrelevent because as Tony L. has stated, H.323, even in its
multicast form, sends masses of point-to-point QOS and security stuff too.
The point to point stuff is TCP and so you'd need to have a relatively clean
channel for that - unless you could somehow spoof it.

What you can do with NM is write your own transport layer, so you'd not need
to re-write all the compression, display and application level stuff. If
that layer happens use multicast, IP or even UI frames then that's up to

By the same token, by the time you've taken the hood off NM to that extent
you could probably steal the relevent Open Source bits and to your own thing

Yet another ongoing project...

73 Howard G6LVB

Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org