is a NAT device/'home router'

jameshanley39 · 2005-09-28T00:10:50+00:00

is a NAT device/'home router' - a router?I see that they receive a frame, and then forward it on to a localcomputer. This isn't routing. Infact, I've heard that NAT is really afirewall feature, and these devices do have built in firewalls.And I can't see that these NAT devices have a routing table either.When they send a frame out, they just send it down the wire, to theISP's router.A 'home router' with its 2 arms and apparently no knowledge of tehoutside world, doesn't seem like a router to me.But I've also heard that it uses RIP and us a router, it's hard to seehow or where. Or what is right

J

J. Clarke 20 years ago

The objective is to discontinue _analog_ VHF and UHF by 31 DEC 2006. _Digital_ broadcast uses the same portion of the spectrum with the exception of the UHF channels above 51.

It's not that people burn them, it's that they _can_.

But the real reason for the popularity is marketing. The producers gain by using DVD--the production cost is minuscule compared to tape. Each tape has to be recorded off a master, which takes far longer than pressing a DVD.

HD has that huge increase in quality.

I doubt that MP3 as a commercial market is going to do particularly well--it could have if the idiots at RIAA had seen it as an opportunity and gone after it agressively as a market, but that horse has long since left the barn.

Vote

J

J. Clarke 20 years ago

I was somewhat amused the other day to find out that there is a Linux port that runs on the Linksys WRT54G and significantly expands the capabilities of that device, which is running a Broadcom ASIC that includes a MIPS32 core.

When one says "ASIC" these days it is important to _not_ forget that 32-bit general purpose microprocessors are available in many cell libraries.

Vote

R

Robert Redelmeier 20 years ago

I thought HDTV was on whole different bands. Where do they have it now that it's coexisting?

Yes, but very few people could at the time DVD crossed over (Xmas 2002?)

VCDs could have been similarly marketted, with the same production advantages. They weren't.

Not that I've been able to see. And I've looked. Sure, 1080i is nicer than the best 525. But the law of diminishing returns takes hold. We shall see.

-- Robert

Vote

R

Robert Redelmeier 20 years ago

Good point. They never were all that user convenient. But they were convenient for produces.

-- Robert

Vote

J

J. Clarke 20 years ago

Just to take an example, the local CBS outlet transmits their analog signal on VHF Channel 3 and their digital signal on UHF Channel 33 while the NBC outlet transmits its analog signal on UHF Channel 22 and its digital signal on VHF Channel 11.

If you go to and tell it your address it will tell you the channel assignments for your location, and what programming is available.

Which is a choice that the producers of prerecorded media made that had little to do with the properties of the media.

On what kind of display? There are very few that can actually display

1080i. Don't assume that because it can accept the signal it can display the quality--if you're not using one of a few Sharp Aquos models or a data grade projection monitor you're not getting anything close to the full effect.

Further, CBS is now transmitting a lot of its digital content with Dolby digital 5.1 audio, which adds more than one might expect if one has surround sound.

Vote

S

stephen 20 years ago

FWIW the cisco 7204vxr (which is still a standard box at work for E3 or STM-1 WAN pipe termination) has 2 off 600 Mbps "PCI" buses. AFAIR it has MIPs type CPU / core. Mind you it is an old design now, and the CPU thruput has gone up by at least a factor of 10, and it now has QoS and other processing offloaded for some jobs.

The newer versions of processor for the box get more bandwidth as there are

3 Gig ports which dont touch the buses.

it doesnt really matter how much CPE and I/Obandwidth you have as long as it is "enough" for the job.

Even with Ethernet WAN links you only need special architectures when you pay serious amounts for the bandwidth - and at that point you can afford routers with "better" architectures without making a big difference to systems cost.

just a different order of magnitude on the price tag :)

Vote