Ken Diliberto wrote: > > But can the internal switch in a 10/100 hub work in full > duplex???
What is an "internal switch in a hub?" Is that another case of a marketing term? ;-) I've never heard of the term. If it's really a hub, then it's just a repeater. Full duplex has no meaning in this contect. Keep in mind that no self-respecting Ethernet guru EVER used the terms half-duplex or full-duplex when talking about Ethernet until a few years ago. Ethernet was plainly and simply CSMA/CD. (MA stands for multiple access, and is of course not full duplex.) Hubs come from this environment. Nobody used the term "switch fabric" or "hub fabric" or "internal switch" either. ;-) A hub was a dumb physical-layer repeater that did the things I mentioned below, (with a few data-link-layer jobs thrown in to ensure collision detection works correctly for the end hosts in a network extended with repeaters/hubs.) Priscilla > > (Don't know why I decided to ask that question other than to > cause > trouble...) > > Ken the Trouble Maker > > >>> "Priscilla Oppenheimer" 09/10/02 > 03:18PM > >>> > r34rv13wm1rr0r wrote: > > > > No. The collision domain on a hub is shared throughout > causing > > each port to > > listen before transmitting. > > No is correct. A hub can't be configured for full-duplex. If it > can be, > it's > been misnamed. It's really a switch. But the explanation is not > correct. A > hub port doesn't listen before sending. It doesn't do MAC > data-link-layer > tasks. It simply forward bits that come in one port out all > other > ports. On > a proper-sized network, the sending end hosts will still be > monitoring > their > transmission, notice any collisions, and retransmit. > [snip] > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53046&t=52973 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
