On 4/11/22 6:16 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
I think "hub" is another word for "repeater" (just like "switch" is
another word for "bridge").
Interesting.
Do you know of any documentation, preferably not marketing materials,
that used "repeater" in lieu of "hub"?
From my naive point of view, hubs came about when multiple stations
connected to a central location, the center, or hub, of the start if you
will. Conversely, I remember reading (after the fact) about repeaters
as something that existed in pure 10Base5 / 10Base2 networks, predating
hubs.
I'm questioning form a place of ignorance. Like a child asking why fire
is hot.
I think there is a large, > 80%, overlap between switch and bridge, but
they aren't perfect. Bridging some traffic between otherwise
incompatible networks comes to mind; e.g. SNAP between Token Ring and
Ethernet or Ethernet to xDSL (RFC 1483).
The device I have is a small standalone box, about the size of today's
small 4-6 port switches you buy at Staples for $100. But it's actually
a repeater, not a switch, and one of its ports is a 10Base2 connector
(BNC jack).
I would firmly consider what you describe as a "hub".
AUI connector, yes. Two are little boxes about the size of the
connector body but maybe 2-3 inches long, with the coax or RJ45
connector at the other end. The 10BaseT is a DEC product, the 10Base2
I don't remember. I also have an ancient 10BaseT transceiver that's
about twice as big, with a jack for an external power source, forgot
the maker of that one.
*nod*nod* I have had many such things various times in the past. I
recently unboxed one that's (from memory) < 2" x < 3" x < 1", with AUI
on one side and 10Base-T on the other side.
You won't get an argument from me on that one... :-)
:-D
That's rather odd because even if someone doesn't obey the letter of
the law you'd think they would at least support 100BaseT. Or was the
problem lack of half duplex? Do those management interfaces want to
run half duplex?
No. It's more nefarious than that. You mentioned supporting n - 1
generation. I'm talking about switches that support 1 Gbps / 10 Gbps /
25 Gbps / 40 Gbps / 50 Gbps / 100 Gbps. They quite simply don't scale
down to 100 Mbps much less 10 Mbps. -- Why would someone want to
support those slow speed connections on such a high speed switch?
Devices like intelligent power strips or serial consoles or the likes in
a cabinet that uses said switch as a Top of Rack device. -- Our
reluctant solution has been to put in a lower end / un-manged 10 Mbps /
100 Mbps / 1 Gbps that can link at 1 Gbps to the main ToR.
I think I saw in the standard that Gigabit Ethernet in theory includes
a half duplex mode, but I have never seen anyone use it and I wonder
if it would work if tried. Perhaps I misread things.
My understanding is that Gigabit Ethernet (and beyond) only supports
full duplex. Maybe I'm mis-remembering or thinking about what is
actually produced vs theoretical / lab experiments.
Similarly, I know someone that has 100 Mbps Token Ring, a.k.a. High
Speed Token Ring (HSTR) equipment for their mainframe. And 1 Gigabit
Token Ring was designed in the lab but never actualized.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
