Monolog vs Dialog

[life24]

Hello,
What means "monolog" and difference between "dialog" and "monolog"?

each party knows that the conversation should be a dialog, not a
monolog

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Di - meaning two, part of Dialog means that two people are speaking.

Mono - meaning one, Part of Monolog means one person is speaking such as a character in a movie speaking aloud to themselves to let the audience know whats going on.

Not sure what this has to do with networking though.

 

[Gryz]

It is to make students understand that in networking, when two computers communicate, packets are always sent in both ways. There is a dialog. Even when all you want to do is send a file from A to B (and nothing from B to A), even then, B must send some packets to A. 1) To confirm the start of the conversation, 2) to acknowledge all received data, and 3) to confirm that the conversation is over.

In network protocols, there are hardly ever monologues. When you look at television, it's different. A transmit-tower, or a satellite, only sends data. It never receives any packets from its customers. TV technology is a monologue.

 

[life24]

Thanks

 

[Ichinisan]

When Conan talks to the audience a little bit before he introduces any guests, that's the monologue. Once the guests are introduced, then have a little dialogue with back-and-forth word exchanges.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

That's a pretty funny way to say "half-duplex" and "full-duplex." What the hell kind of network cert are you trying to get, OP?

 

[Gryz]

English is not everybody's first language. Sometimes concepts are hard to understand, but sometimes it's just the words themselves.

As long as life24 says "thank you" after someone tries to help him here, he can post any question he wants. I'll try my best to answer if I see such a question.

 

[azazel1024]

That's a pretty funny way to say "half-duplex" and "full-duplex." What the hell kind of network cert are you trying to get, OP?

Not really. I wouldn't call UDP a half-duplex technology. I'd call it a monolog. TCP/IP is a dialog, because it requires packets to be sent both directions to work.

UDP and TCP/IP can both be operated on half-duplex or full duplex links.

UDP is optional monolog as many applications that operate on UDP actually do communications in both directions, but UDP itself is completely monolog.

Monolog and dialog are odd ways to put it, but they are correct. Half-duplex and full duplex are not the ways to describe L2/L3 layers operation.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Hmm. Ok.

 

[Gryz]

Full-duplex and half-duplex have nothing to do with monologue versus dialogue.

Full-duplex versus half-duplex is only stating whether both sides can transmit at the same time. Or whether only one can transmit, and the other has to wait until the first one is finished, and then it is his turn to transmit. When we talk about full/half duplex it is almost always about a point-to-point circuit.

So it is not whether you can send in both directions. It is only about the *time* you can send. All the time both can send (full) or they have to wait turns (half).

For the record, there are also circuits where you can send in only one-direction. A satellite link would be an example. An MPLS tunnel would be another. In that case we don't talk about duplex. In that case we call it a "uni-directional link".

Bringing in TCP and UDP into this discussion is only confusing. They have very little to do with full versus half duplex. And even if you want to put that label on it: both TCP and UDP are full-duplex, because both sides can send at the same time (if they want to).

Even mentioning that TCP and UDP can run over full- and half-duplex links makes hardly sense. TCP and UDP run on top of IP. And IP can run on anything. Fiber, 33.6Kbps modems, satellite links, wireless. Anything and everything. And it doesn't matter whether the underlying layer-2 technology is full- or half-duplex.

Small history lesson.
25 years ago someone made a joke about that.
He wore a t-shirt to a convention that said: "I P on everything".

Bonus points if you know who this guy is.

 

[CZroe]

That's a pretty funny way to say "half-duplex" and "full-duplex." What the hell kind of network cert are you trying to get, OP?

Even half-duplex can be "dialog" as long as there is back and forth. Perhaps it's talking about broadcast packets or something.

 

[azazel1024]

Full-duplex and half-duplex have nothing to do with monologue versus dialogue.

Full-duplex versus half-duplex is only stating whether both sides can transmit at the same time. Or whether only one can transmit, and the other has to wait until the first one is finished, and then it is his turn to transmit. When we talk about full/half duplex it is almost always about a point-to-point circuit.

So it is not whether you can send in both directions. It is only about the *time* you can send. All the time both can send (full) or they have to wait turns (half).

For the record, there are also circuits where you can send in only one-direction. A satellite link would be an example. An MPLS tunnel would be another. In that case we don't talk about duplex. In that case we call it a "uni-directional link".

Bringing in TCP and UDP into this discussion is only confusing. They have very little to do with full versus half duplex. And even if you want to put that label on it: both TCP and UDP are full-duplex, because both sides can send at the same time (if they want to).

Even mentioning that TCP and UDP can run over full- and half-duplex links makes hardly sense. TCP and UDP run on top of IP. And IP can run on anything. Fiber, 33.6Kbps modems, satellite links, wireless. Anything and everything. And it doesn't matter whether the underlying layer-2 technology is full- or half-duplex.

Small history lesson.
25 years ago someone made a joke about that.
He wore a t-shirt to a convention that said: "I P on everything".

Bonus points if you know who this guy is.

It makes sense to bring it up, because the OP was asking specifically about monolog and dialog. Another user brought up the half-duplex and full duplex thing...which has nothing to do with it, I was pointing out the difference. It is a protocol thing that determines monolog/dialog, not the physical link layer, which can be half-duplex, full duplex or as you pointed out unidirectional link.

 

[KingFatty]

Is there a proper networking term for monolog/dialog? It's not duplex, but is there another term?

 

[CZroe]

Full-duplex and half-duplex have nothing to do with monologue versus dialogue.

Full-duplex versus half-duplex is only stating whether both sides can transmit at the same time. Or whether only one can transmit, and the other has to wait until the first one is finished, and then it is his turn to transmit. When we talk about full/half duplex it is almost always about a point-to-point circuit.

So it is not whether you can send in both directions. It is only about the *time* you can send. All the time both can send (full) or they have to wait turns (half).

For the record, there are also circuits where you can send in only one-direction. A satellite link would be an example. An MPLS tunnel would be another. In that case we don't talk about duplex. In that case we call it a "uni-directional link".

Bringing in TCP and UDP into this discussion is only confusing. They have very little to do with full versus half duplex. And even if you want to put that label on it: both TCP and UDP are full-duplex, because both sides can send at the same time (if they want to).

Even mentioning that TCP and UDP can run over full- and half-duplex links makes hardly sense. TCP and UDP run on top of IP. And IP can run on anything. Fiber, 33.6Kbps modems, satellite links, wireless. Anything and everything. And it doesn't matter whether the underlying layer-2 technology is full- or half-duplex.

Small history lesson.
25 years ago someone made a joke about that.
He wore a t-shirt to a convention that said: "I P on everything".

Bonus points if you know who this guy is.

I sub the guy on YouTube (Hack-a-day channel). I also see that you beat me to the "half-duplex is still dialog" thing. Functional conversation between two human beings with no machinery is also typically half-duplex.

 

[Gryz]

I sub the guy on YouTube (Hack-a-day channel).

I don't think the guy in the picture has anything to do with the Hack-a-day channel. Try again.

Anyway, it was Vint Cerf. One of the minds behind many of the ideas of the Internet.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Is there a proper networking term for monolog/dialog? It's not duplex, but is there another term?

Connection/Connectionless or Sessioned/Sessionless - were what I learned anyways.

Nouns are very YMMV.

 

[Gryz]

Connection/Connectionless or Sessioned/Sessionless - were what I learned anyways.

Are you doing this intentionally ?

Connection-oriented versus connection-less has nothing to do with monologue versus dialogue. And nothing to do with full-duplex versus half-duplex.
http://courses.iddl.vt.edu/CS1604/15-Lesson_14/04-Connection-Oriented_vs_Connectionless.php

I expect that the next thing you'll say will be: monologue versus dialogue is the same as reliable versus unreliable communication.

Nouns are very YMMV.

Every field of technology has its own vocabulary. Vocabulary is very important if you want to discuss things. If all people just come up with their own definitions of words, there will be very little meaningful communication.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Are you doing this intentionally ?

Connection-oriented versus connection-less has nothing to do with monologue versus dialogue. And nothing to do with full-duplex versus half-duplex.
http://courses.iddl.vt.edu/CS1604/15-Lesson_14/04-Connection-Oriented_vs_Connectionless.php

I'm not talking about full duplex and half duplex, I'm talking about UDP/TCP.

*clicks link*
*ctrl-f dialog*

Okay... so you can post links. Congratulations, I guess.

Every field of technology has its own vocabulary. Vocabulary is very important if you want to discuss things. If all people just come up with their own definitions of words, there will be very little meaningful communication.

Refer back to OP and find me the very specific technology he's talking about, please. I'd love to know. Because I'm just playing "guess-the-metaphor" and you seem to think it's REALLY important that I guess right. So you must know the answer, right?