In a message dated: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 15:05:24 EDT Benjamin Scott said: > In theory, it will work that way. Personally, I want to move to Theory. >Everything works in Theory. :-)
Good point :) Let me know when you get there, I'm curious if Theory lives up to their marketing literature ;) >> The 10Mb ethernet spec I believe calls for 10Mb HD, whereas the 100Mb >> spec calls for 100Mb FD. > > The 100 Mbit specs do not require FDX. They do not even require >auto-negotiation. It is quite possible to have a single-speed, half-duplex, >100 Mbit/sec repeater (which will not even work at 10 Mbit). Hmmm, seems I chose my words poorly. What you say is quite true. What I meant to express was that within the spec the example implementations are HDX for 10Mb and FDX for 100Mb, simply because at the times of writing, the cabling media then prevalent were capable of those transmission characteristics. But, as you point out, the spec doesn't dictate either, it merely outlines what can be done. > You also need equipment capable of handling it. In particular, you cannot >do FDX with a repeater. You need a switch. Correct, though, is there anything actually prohibiting a repeater from using FDX, or is it simply that the manufacturers wish to keep things simlpe and therefore cheap? >People cannot seem to understand why their $5 Ethernet adapter >with no documentation and a hand-lettered floppy disk doesn't >work right. :-) Well, this pretty much goes for everything, right? Pay $5 for a NIC or $10 for hub, you get the same quality one should expect with anything you get at [Wal, K]Mart/Radio Shack, right? If you want quality, you must be willing to pay for it (OSes excluded ;) ********************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the *body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter: unsubscribe gnhlug **********************************************************
