Michael Williams wrote:
For a device (or interface) operating in full-duplex, wouldn't
total throughput = total full-duplex throughput?!?!??!
I.E. Isn't it a correct statement to say: FastEthernet is
capable of a total throughput of 200Mbps? I believe it is.
Mike W.
Mike,
If you
richard beddow wrote:
If you trully beleive this then I fear your are destined for
that dark place which is marketing. Ok it is not incorrect but
does not give the full picture.
I take exception to this comment. If there is one thing that is *preached*
by Cisco is that the main advantage of
Mike,
I have three final comments then I think enough has been said.
1. Ethernet has always been a half duplex standard until recent times, FDX
operation is always quoted therefore to make the distinction from the default.
2. Serial lines, however, since the late seventies-early eighties have
Yes I do. Thanks to all for your comments and help. It's always
interesting to open a
debate on a subject like this.
Regards,
Charles.
richard beddow wrote:
Mike,
I have three final comments then I think enough has been said.
1. Ethernet has always been a half duplex standard until
Richard,
Sorry for the misread of your humor. You're correct, sometimes text doesn't
convey your true spirit. Oh well not a thang =)
Here's the damnest thing tho. I've asked many networking professionals,
including two CCIEs (not candidates), and no could seem to know 100% about
whether
: Serial links [7:28270]
Having said that, what are your thoughts on my question about
a point to
point T1 link at 1.544 Mbps? Is that 768Kbps each way or
1.544each way?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=28423t=28270
I hope your joking. To go thru all that in order to find documnted
information. T1's are nothing new nor is full duplex synchronous
communications.
BTW it's 1.5 in each direction so i spose that makes a T1 a 3M link ;)
Dave
Michael Williams wrote:
Richard,
Sorry for the misread of
At 10:54 AM 12/7/01, Michael Williams wrote:
Richard,
Here's the damnest thing tho. I've asked many networking professionals,
including two CCIEs (not candidates), and no could seem to know 100% about
whether serial links were half or full duplex. Sad, eh?
It's not sad. Most serial, WAN
transmit was amplified. N carrier circuits again used four wire. The
channels were seperated by frequency. L carrier used coax. Can't remember if
one or two cables as I didn't work on it.
-Original Message-
From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
m
Subject: Re: Serial links
bs (1536) each plus framing. I think that
the
Larscom CSU/DSU manuals have a good tutorial.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Subject: Re: Serial links [7:28270]
Having said that, what are your thoughts on my question about
a point to
point
sed four wire. The
channels were seperated by frequency. L carrier used coax. Can't remember
if
one or two cables as I didn't work on it.
-Original Message-
From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
m
Subject: Re: Serial links [7:28270]
Each side has its own dedicated
-
From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
m
Subject: Re: Serial links [7:28270]
Each side has its own dedicated transmit pair. Big deal. That's been the
case on WANs since like the 1940s or something. Well, maybe the 1970s.
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http
oice. 24 channels of 64 kbs (1536) each plus framing.
I think that
the
Larscom CSU/DSU manuals have a good tutorial.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Subject: Re: Serial links [7:28270]
Having said that, what are your thoughts on my
Hi all,
Can anyone tell me if the real bandwidth of a permanent 2Mb serial PPP
connection is. What I mean by this is, if you had equal amount of
traffic in both directions would you effectively haf 1Mb up and 1Mb down
or would it be 2Mb up and 2Mb down. Is a serial connection full duplex
or
Charles,
Serial lines are full duplex, actual line speed is 2048Kbps.
RB.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=28277t=28270
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report
Michael,
Is this so??
If so then it is not full-duplex but half-duplex. So why then do cisco say
this:
The NM-4T serial network module has four synchronous serial interfaces. The
network module supports a total full-duplex throughput of 8 megabits per
second (Mbps),
on this data sheet:
4T x Duplex x 1 Meg
4 x 2 x 1
richard beddow wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Michael,
Is this so??
If so then it is not full-duplex but half-duplex. So why then do cisco
say
this:
The NM-4T serial network module has four synchronous serial interfaces.
The
So should the data sheet say total throughput and not total full-duplex
throughput??
RB
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=28286t=28270
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
]
Subject: Re: Serial links [7:28270]
So should the data sheet say total throughput and not total full-duplex
throughput??
RB
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=28290t=28270
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription
RB,
First, you can't simply look at a speed and say it's half or full
duplex. Full duplex simply means it can send data while simultaneously
receiving data.
As far as that datasheet, you left out the rest of that sentence you quoted,
which says, which can be realized over one port (at 8 Mbps)
richard beddow wrote:
So should the data sheet say total throughput and not total
full-duplex throughput??
RB
For a device (or interface) operating in full-duplex, wouldn't total
throughput = total full-duplex throughput?!?!??!
I.E. Isn't it a correct statement to say: FastEthernet
One last thing from me, and I'll shut up. =)
I have to yield the floor here to an authority. I'm sure that serial links
can (and many times do) operate in full-duplex mode, but I cannot say that I
know for a fact that when you have a 2Mbps serial line that it doesn't yield
4Mbps of total
22 matches
Mail list logo
