1K0-001 · Question #322
Video Conferencing Terminals that are designed to tolerate Network delay, packets lost, packets out of sequence, and jitter are called________.
The correct answer is C. H.323 Terminals. See the full explanation below for the reasoning.
Question
Video Conferencing Terminals that are designed to tolerate Network delay, packets lost, packets out of sequence, and jitter are called________.
Options
- AH.321 Terminals
- BH.320 Terminals
- CH.323 Terminals
- DF.150 Terminals
- ET.120 Data Transfer ANSI Terminals.
How the community answered
(34 responses)- B3% (1)
- C76% (26)
- D9% (3)
- E12% (4)
Community Discussion
4C is the right answer, and if you understand what H.323 actually does you will never mix this up again. H.323 was designed by the ITU specifically to run video conferencing over packet-switched networks like IP, where you have zero guarantees about delay, loss, ordering, or jitter. That is the whole problem H.323 was built to solve. It includes mechanisms like buffering and error concealment precisely because packets on an IP network show up late, out of order, or not at all, and the terminal has to cope gracefully anyway. H.320 is the older standard designed for ISDN, which is a circuit-switched network where those problems largely do not exist because you get a dedicated channel with predictable timing. H.321 is just H.320 adapted for ATM, still circuit-oriented thinking. F.150 and T.120 are not even in the right conversation, F.150 does not exist as a terminal standard and T.120 is a data collaboration protocol, not a video terminal spec. Know the network type, and the answer writes itself: packet-switched with all its chaos is H.323 territory.
H.323 is the right call here. It was built specifically for packet-switched networks like IP where you deal with exactly those issues, delay, loss, out-of-order delivery, and jitter, which is the whole reason it replaced H.320 for internet-based video conferencing.
C is right, H.323 was built specifically for packet-switched networks like IP where you are going to deal with variable delay, dropped packets, and jitter as normal operating conditions. H.320 is the older ISDN standard where the circuit-switched network handles those problems for you, so the terminal itself never had to worry about them.
Bao has the right idea but flipped the logic on H.323, it was designed to cope with those packet network problems precisely because IP gives you no QoS guarantees by default, whereas H.320 on ISDN sidesteps jitter and loss concerns because the circuit itself provides a dedicated, constant-bandwidth pipe.