I've noticed it taking about 24 hours to get the post to appear on the
newsgroup side of groupstudy (Which is the side I tend to use).
Kevin L. Kultgen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kevin L. Kultgen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tim O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Ethernet Trivia
> My brain hurts! &;-) My point was simply that on a short cable, the issue
> of how much "space" a bit takes on the cable is irrelevant, n'est-ce pas??
>
> We all agree that serialization is the real issue. A 100Base-T port can
> output bits 10 times as fast.
>
> By the way, I never saw my message posted. Did you? I haven't seen hardly
> any of my messages posted lately. It's frustrating.
>
> Priscilla
>
> At 06:08 PM 10/6/00, Kevin L. Kultgen wrote:
> >I'm not sure I stated my view properly. The first bits would get there
at
> >the same time but the last bits of 100bT would arrive wayyy before the
last
> >bits of the 10bT frame. The 100bT could send (almost) 10 frames in the
same
> >amount of time that the 10bT sent its one.
> >
> >I know Priscilla already has her CNX so she should be treated as a higher
> >(final?) authority.
> >
> >Kevin L. Kultgen
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Kevin L. Kultgen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tim O'Brien"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 6:01 PM
> >Subject: Re: Ethernet Trivia
> >
> >
> > > Kevin,
> > >
> > > Great analysis.
> > >
> > > Does this help at all? Speed of light in twisted-pair cable is 177,000
> > > km/sec. So a bit occupies 177,000 divided by 10 million bits per
second,
> >or
> > > 17.7 meters, in 10 Mbps Ethernet.
> > >
> > > 177,000 divided by 100 million bits per second is 1.77 meters for 100
Mbps
> > > Ethernet. (I'm sure you figured that one out already.)
> > >
> > > It would have to be a pretty long cable for the 100 Mbps versus 10
Mbps to
> > > make any difference!
> > >
> > > Priscilla
> > >
> > > At 10:12 AM 10/5/00, Kevin L. Kultgen wrote:
> > > >They would both start at the same time. The 100bT interface would be
> > > >placing bits on the wire faster than the 10bT interface and would
> >complete
> > > >placing bits on the wire in 1/10 the time. But those bits can't
actually
> > > >move any faster through the copper medium. The copper isn't more
> >conductive
> > > >(it's still Cat 5(e)) and the speed of light hasn't increased. So
the
> >bits
> > > >that are placed on the wire will move through the wire at exactly the
> >same
> > > >rate. If the bits for 10bT consume 5 meters of cable megth before
the
> >NIC
> > > >moves the the next bit then a bit for 100bT will be 1/2 meter (.5
meters)
> > > >before the next bit is placed on the wire. This is just an example,
I'm
> >not
> > > >sure of the exact lengths of the bits on the wire, but the point is
that
> >the
> > > >bits can't move any faster because the speed of electricity through
> >copper
> > > >is fixed. The difference is that the 100bT card is placing bits on
the
> >wire
> > > >10x faster than the 10bT card. And 1000bT (gigabit ethernet) places
bits
> >on
> > > >the wire 100x faster than the 10bT card (or each bit would be .05
meters
> >(5
> > > >centimeters), given the above example).
> > > >
> > > >So, on 100bT the end of the packet (the whole packet) would arrive
before
> > > >the 10bT would be done (in fact depending on the size of the packet
10bT
> > > >might still be sending the preamble or headers), but the start of the
> > > >packets (first bit of the preamble) would arrive at the same time.
> > > >
> > > >HTH,
> > > >
> > > >Thanx
> > > >
> > > >Kevin L. Kultgen
> > > >
> > > >Disclaimer: YMMV, the 5/.5/.05 meters are all fictional, I was told
at
> >one
> > > >point how long a bit is on the wire but I forgot it. If I have
anything
> > > >that needs clarification (or correction) then please feel free to add
it
> >or
> > > >request it. This is helping me too, because I'm looking at taking
the
> > > >CNX-Ethernet exam (http://www.mycnx2000.com, http://www.cnx2000.com).
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Tim O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: "Kevin L. Kultgen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 5:49 AM
> > > >Subject: Re: Ethernet Trivia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > So if this were the case, and they both started at the same time
and
> >used
> > > > > the same size frame/packet I would think that the 100Mbps
interface
> >would
> > > > > get the packet onto the wire faster hence it would arrive sooner
than
> >the
> > > > > 10Mbps interface which would probably still be putting the data on
the
> > > >wire.
> > > > > Correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tim
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Kevin L. Kultgen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Newsgroups: groupstudy.cisco
> > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 12:35 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Ethernet Trivia
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > They would bith reach the destination at the same time (speed of
> > > >electricity
> > > > > through copper). The difference is in the rate at which the bits
are
> > > >placed
> > > > > on the wire, the Fast Ethernet would be placing 20 bits of
information
> > > > > (actually encoded as 24 bits) on the wire for every 2 bits that
the
> >10bT
> > > > > would place on the wire. At least his is my understanding of
100bT vs
> > > > > 10bT..
> > > > >
> > > > > Anybody else have different(better?) interpretations?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Kevin L. Kultgen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ""Frank"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > 8rfksm$l2s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:8rfksm$l2s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Let's say we have a 10Mbps and 100Mbps interface. Both transmit
the
> > > >same
> > > > > > sized
> > > > > > frame over the same type of media and over the same distance and
> >neither
> > > > > > experience
> > > > > > a collision. Which will get to the destination first?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information
go
> >to
> > > > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> > > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> > > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com
> > > > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information
go to
> > > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com
> > > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >**NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go
to
> > > >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> > > >_________________________________
> > > >UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> > > >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> > > >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________
> > >
> > > Priscilla Oppenheimer
> > > http://www.priscilla.com
> > >
> > >
>
>
> ________________________
>
> Priscilla Oppenheimer
> http://www.priscilla.com
>
>
**NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
_________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
