Brian,
You don't have to prove it to me. After reading a couple of explanations
that framed the header size as the constant (as opposed to the bit times) it
was a little easier to see how they got the wording for B. I certainly
wasn't disputing the relationship to the cable diatmeter.
Thanks for the input, though!
------Original Message------
From: "Brian Lodwick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: January 22, 2001 10:30:31 PM GMT
Subject: Re: FWD: RE: EASY ?? FOR MOST OF YOU
Well answer B is correct. The diameter of the network is in fact 10 times
smaller than 10Mb/sec. This is because the 802 committee wanted to keep
CSMA/CD. I don't see how it can be disputed the cable diameter is 10 times
smaller on Fast Ethernet than regular 10baseT. Full Duplex is the same way
it looks for collisions (smart). Proof: go to this link and go to 100BaseT
Operation.
http://www.ieng.com/cpress/cc/td/cpress/fund/ith2nd/it2407.htm#xtocid2172310
>>>Brian
>From: Jack Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Jack Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: FWD: RE: EASY ?? FOR MOST OF YOU
>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:37:45 -0500 (EST)
>
>I didn't care much for either of those choices.
>
>The propagation delay for Ethernet must not be greater than 512 bit times
>or
>you'll get late collisions (as Tim said). Since the speed of light is
>constant and 10-baseT bits last 10 times longer than 100-baseT bits, that
>directly influences how long of a cable you can run down and back!
>
>That sounded like Nonsense, didn't it?
>
>------Original Message------
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy Metz)
>To: Alvarado Jesus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: January 22, 2001 7:43:48 PM GMT
>Subject: RE: EASY ?? FOR MOST OF YOU
>
>
>It's B.
>
>I think we just had this discussion not too long ago, it was quite a long
>thread with a lot of discussion on slot time (or the Cisco equiv term).
>
>Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Alvarado Jesus
> > Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 8:11 PM
> > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > Subject: EASY ?? FOR MOST OF YOU
> >
> >
> > The network span of a 100Base-T Network (205) meters is approx. 10 times
> > smaller than the network span of a 10Base-T network (2500) meters
>Because
> > ....
> >
> > A) , Higher speed data signals attenuate more quickly and so cannot be
> > transmitted that far
> >
> >
> > B) . Both Networks have minimum frame sizes of 64 bytes and the network
> > spans must be tied directly to the minimum frame transmission
> > time to avoid
> > collisions.
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
