| Author |
Message |
Hal Kuff
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:30 pm Post subject:
Do two Transceivers = Collision Domain? |
|
|
To settle an old argument, do two transceivers with a cable between them
(of PHD spec lenght) constitute a valid collision domain? Years ago I was
told that was considered extremely bad practice.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:10 pm Post subject:
Re: Do two Transceivers = Collision Domain? |
|
|
"Hal Kuff" <kuff@tessco.com> wrote:
| Quote: | To settle an old argument, do two transceivers with a cable between them
(of PHD spec lenght) constitute a valid collision domain?
|
Sure, why not? If they both talk at the same time, they'll collide.
[Well, unless they are full-duplex, but then there are no collisions,
so talking about a domain for them isn't sensical...]
| Quote: | Years ago I was
told that was considered extremely bad practice....
|
What was? To put two transcievers on a cable? To consider that a
collision domain?
Maybe I'm missing something, what's "PHD spec lenght"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hal Kuff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:20 am Post subject:
Re: Do two Transceivers = Collision Domain? |
|
|
Sorry I meant PHY, that is to say the cable length would satisfy minimum
length .....Honestly, there seemed a debate occuring in past years about
whether the spec supported the use of transceivers in this manner.
<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:qioba1hrgifodd1j5budr7e40049spi1b5@4ax.com...
| Quote: | "Hal Kuff" <kuff@tessco.com> wrote:
To settle an old argument, do two transceivers with a cable between them
(of PHD spec lenght) constitute a valid collision domain?
Sure, why not? If they both talk at the same time, they'll collide.
[Well, unless they are full-duplex, but then there are no collisions,
so talking about a domain for them isn't sensical...]
Years ago I was
told that was considered extremely bad practice....
What was? To put two transcievers on a cable? To consider that a
collision domain?
Maybe I'm missing something, what's "PHD spec lenght"?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Seifert
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:20 am Post subject:
Re: Do two Transceivers = Collision Domain? |
|
|
In article <11ac90c34kvc7ea@corp.supernews.com>,
"Hal Kuff" <kuff@tessco.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Sorry I meant PHY, that is to say the cable length would satisfy minimum
length .....Honestly, there seemed a debate occuring in past years about
whether the spec supported the use of transceivers in this manner.
|
In the case of 10/100/1000BASE-T, having only two transceivers connected
by a proper cable is the ONLY way to connect them. Unlike
10BASE2/10BASE5 (coaxial Ethernet), you cannot have more than two
transceivers connected to a given cable.
Whether those two transceivers comprise the entire collision domain or
only a portion of it is a function of the hub device (bridge/switch vs.
repeater). Remember, the hub device has an internal transceiver for each
port, and all 10/100/1000BASE-T configurations use only point-to-point
links between pairs of transceivers.
--
Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting
21885 Bear Creek Way
(408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033
(408) 228-0803 FAX
Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan J. Flavell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:20 am Post subject:
Re: Do two Transceivers = Collision Domain? |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Hal Kuff wrote:
| Quote: | To settle an old argument, do two transceivers with a cable
between them (of PHD spec lenght) constitute a valid collision
domain?
|
Any chance of a translation into English for native speakers?
Back in co-ax days, there was a recommended minimum distance between
nodes for proper collision resolution, if that has any relevance to
the question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in