2 ms·

This is well outside my area of expertise, assess accordingly. From some quick DDGing, PRI (primary rate interface) is one of several possible options for a pa

This is well outside my area of expertise, assess accordingly. From some quick DDGing, PRI (primary rate interface) is one of several possible options for a packet-switched telephony system, and is specifically contrasted with SIP VOIP connections in this article: <https://enterprise.spectrum.com/support/faq/voice-and-collaboration/what-is-a-pri-phone-system.html https://enterprise.spectrum.com/support/faq/voice-and-collab...> NB, "always 23" ... unless you're in Europe, in which case 23 === 30. More on PRI vs. SIP: <https://enterprise.spectrum.com/support/faq/voice-and-collaboration/what-is-the-difference-between-pri-and-sip-trunk.html https://enterprise.spectrum.com/support/faq/voice-and-collab...>. (Other than being able to spell PRI and the above articles, I've no knowledge on the topic.)

ssl-3 1y ago
PRI is TDM. It isn't packet-switched; there are no packets on the voice-carrying B channels. It uses timeslots, instead. > NB, "always 23" ... unless you're in Europe, in which case 23 === 30. I believe I was very specific about the locality I was referring to, but I am appreciative of the seemingly-disingenuous pedantry that is apparently unfettered by such arcane concepts as "context".
- dredmorbius 1y ago
  Where TDM == "time-division multiplexing". Expanding acronyms, particularly those from less-mainstream concepts and fields, is appreciated. It wasn't clear from your comment (or the source I'd read) that PRI is circuit based. The fact that circuits can be multiplexed (whether through frequency-separation, timeslicing, or other mechanisms, see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplexing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplexing> for general MUXology) is irrelevant. They are still circuits. And there are limits to how many circuits can be maintained at a single time, regardless of the apparent endpoint combinatorial possibilities. Packet-based switching has far greater capacity and flexibility, as I, my sources, and several other comments to this thread, have noted. Pedantry aside, you seem to be confirming my initial point.
  - ssl-3 1y ago
    I firmly disagree with your initial point. We have data flowing at rate N. It fits perfectly and precisely through a pipe of N size, with no room to spare (as is the way of a PRI). We add to this data additional packetization overhead that was never present before. So where we once had N, we now have N + >0. That's more than N. The pipe is still only N, though -- it hasn't changed at all. The data no longer fits; it cannot fit. Capacity is thus reduced by the addition of packetization.

ssl-3 1y ago

PRI is TDM. It isn't packet-switched; there are no packets on the voice-carrying B channels. It uses timeslots, instead. > NB, "always 23" ... unless you're in Europe, in which case 23 === 30. I believe I was very specific about the locality I was referring to, but I am appreciative of the seemingly-disingenuous pedantry that is apparently unfettered by such arcane concepts as "context".

dredmorbius 1y ago
Where TDM == "time-division multiplexing". Expanding acronyms, particularly those from less-mainstream concepts and fields, is appreciated. It wasn't clear from your comment (or the source I'd read) that PRI is circuit based. The fact that circuits can be multiplexed (whether through frequency-separation, timeslicing, or other mechanisms, see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplexing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplexing> for general MUXology) is irrelevant. They are still circuits. And there are limits to how many circuits can be maintained at a single time, regardless of the apparent endpoint combinatorial possibilities. Packet-based switching has far greater capacity and flexibility, as I, my sources, and several other comments to this thread, have noted. Pedantry aside, you seem to be confirming my initial point.
- ssl-3 1y ago
  I firmly disagree with your initial point. We have data flowing at rate N. It fits perfectly and precisely through a pipe of N size, with no room to spare (as is the way of a PRI). We add to this data additional packetization overhead that was never present before. So where we once had N, we now have N + >0. That's more than N. The pipe is still only N, though -- it hasn't changed at all. The data no longer fits; it cannot fit. Capacity is thus reduced by the addition of packetization.