Re: Refs or no refs

Ross Binnie (dianaros@vianet.on.ca)
Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:28:57 -0500


Interesting observation.

I was not aware that 127.0.0.1 is the tcp/ip loop back address.
How do I find a reflector that provides a self reflect?
I am aware of some of the differences between Cu and other vide systems. My
observation about
Connectix was by way of an illustration that I am able to receive images
using other systems.
Meeting Point?

Ross
----------

> From: ike relucio <ike_relucio@cyberdude.com>
> To: dianaros@vianet.on.ca; CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu
> Subject: Re: Refs or no refs
> Date: Tuesday, October 28, 1997 10:04 AM
>
> The ip address 127.0.0.1 is the tcp/ip loopback address. The video that
you
> send while connected to that address does not really go out to the
internet.
> It is looped-back from within your system so it is really not appropriate
to
> compare the image quality that you get from that.
>
> Look for a reflector that has a self-reflect conference id that you can
> connect to. That way your video goes out to the reflector and gets sent
back
> to you.
>
> Also, comparing video received from a reflector with video from software
> like connectix videophone or other point-to-point software is an apples
and
> oranges thing. Better to compare it with CUSEEME video received from a
DC.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Binnie <dianaros@vianet.on.ca>
> To: CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu <CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, October 28, 1997 2:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Refs or no refs
>
>
> >Okay, I have a partial response to problems with frames & etc.
> >
> >
> >Using Cu,
> >System, P133, 16mb USR Sportster 28.8 Int Async.
> >
> >Chat enabled.
> >
> >Audio disabled
> >
> >At 5.06 pm EST connected to Streaks Ref 127.0.0.1
> >Looking at my own image; Send 10 > 28
> > Rec. 10 > 120
> >
> >Shows Send of 1 > 2 FPs;
> > Rec of 1 Fps;
> >
> >Received image is well defined
> >
> >Test end 5.09 EST
> >
> >
> >At 5.25 pm EST connected to University of Texas Ref 128.83.42.61
> >Chat enabled and many were using the chat feature.
> >At start; 8 users, 3 visible, 4 hidden, 1 lurker.
> >
> >Increased to 11 users by end of test.
> >
> > At 5.25 the visble users were Suz, Partial image
> > Ringmaster, Partial image
> > Highlander, Partial image
> >
> >Cu showed link loss as 0%
> > link response as 0.87
> >
> >Test ended after 5.5 minutes. None of the above images were completly
> >displayed in that time.
> >
> >This is about normal for me. By contrast using Connectix VideoPhone each
> >image received is complete albeit resolution is fair to poor for most
> >connections.
> >
> >Comments?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----------
> >> From: Jason Williams <streak@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
> >> To: CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu
> >> Subject: Re: Refs or no refs
> >> Date: Monday, October 27, 1997 12:34 PM
> >>
> >> On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Ross Binnie wrote:
> >> > I have the same experience as Rolf (poor or no frames after several
> >> > minutes). Only rarely do I get more than one moderately good image.
> >>
> >> As others have pointed out, this depends highly upon which reflectors
you
> >> go to. If you have problems with ALL of them, you may try another
> >> Internet provider that's multihomed. Routers can break the internet
> >> rather quickly :)
> >> Ping and Tracert are godsends...they can tell you quite a lot.
> >>
> >> <muttering about Sprint's downtime...>
> >>
> >> --
> >> streak@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu * Jason Williams -- Austin, Tx. | |
> >> streak@mail.utexas.edu * University of Texas at Austin | ___ |
> >> streak@cs.utexas.edu * BS Computer Science \_|_/
> >> *************** http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~streak/ **************|
> >>
>