Blackbox has some accurate but "good for a layperson" info on their site: http://www.blackbox.com/Tech_Support/Black_Box_Explains.aspx Get their print catalog. In between the item pages, they typically stuff a few "how-to" tutorials here and there... cheers, R. On Friday, November 18, 2005, at 01:04PM, Biti <Biti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Thank you very much Rob. > >The bits I understood are invaluable info. > >:) > >Any resource online more in layman's terms? > >Biti > >On Nov 18, 2005, at 7:45 AM, Rob VanHooren wrote: > >> Hello. >> >> Not to toot my own horn, but take it from someone "who does this sort >> of thing for a living" /grin/ : >> >> To make a long story short... >> >> IEEE 802.3 (10Mbps ethernet) distance is not 100ft it is 100m. For >> buffer, commonly 90m is used. >> Standard for 802.3z gigabit, as well as 100Mbps ethernet distances >> are the same for a copper twisted-pair medium. >> >> It is not a question of >100m performance will be less; at > 100m it >> should not be expected to function at all! >> >> Collisions have no place (i.e. do not exist) in a full-duplex >> (switched) environment -- the microsegmentation of a switch >> alleviates the requirement for the collisioning in CDMA to do >> rudimentary flow-control. >> >> (can you even buy hubs at retail anymore? you'd have to look pretty >> hard to find one I think -- most Linksys, SMC, DLink, etc SOHO >> electronics are switching chipsets rather than the simple electrical >> regeneration of a hub) >> >> There are also rules for cascade of hubs and switches (e.g. 3rd cable >> run must be > 15m to avoid nasty interference). >> 'nother rule of thumb... if you need to cross AC lines (romex or what >> have you) do so perpendicularly, and with parallel runs stay at least >> 6ft away (esp. true when near fluorescent ballasts). >> >> The 10ms latency for an ACK as described is not really an element to >> consider. There is jitter and a 9.6 microsecond interframe gap, >> perhaps that was what prompted you to recall 10<something> as a risk >> to traffic. >> >> Hopefully this clarifies a few earlier misconceptions. >> >> cheers, >> >> R. >> >> >> >> >> On 16-Nov-05, at 4:18 AM, Garth Phillips wrote: >> >>> Everything is always a debate with you isn't it Eric? >>> >>> Wireless networks are secure reliable and it is quite >>> rare to see a greenfield site starting with wired >>> Ethernet. And the expense difference is not so great, >>> according to CIO magazine article a few months ago, >>> about 5% more until you need to make changes to the >>> infrastructure in which case wireless can be up to 20% >>> cheaper. >>> >>> As for security, both Canada's CSIS and Homeland >>> Security use wireless as part of their networks. >>> >>> On the limit thing, yes there is an ultimate distance >>> for Ethernet cabling but it is far beyond 100Ft and >>> VERY unlikely that in a home, even a palatial >>> 10,000FT-2 one, you'd run up against it. Again the >>> 100FT run limit is based on a calculation of how much >>> traffic there is, how many devices and being able to >>> detect collisions within a specific time limit. this >>> is why it's called Collision Domain Architecture and >>> not Limited Distance. While I've long forgotten the >>> hard formula, I seem to recall that it can not take >>> more then 10mS for traffic to travel to it's >>> destination and back to the sending device for >>> confirmation of a "good send" or collisions are not >>> seen. The more traffic, the more collisions which slow >>> down the whole LAN, and the shorter the distances can >>> be. >>> >>> Future proof? While I can't watch television >>> transmissions over the Internet 'cause the bandwidth >>> from Rogers Hi-speed isn't enough, I can watch is >>> seemlessly over a new wireless phone which is far >>> cheaper than GB ethernet. >>> >>> By the way Eric, don't forget that the standard for >>> both 100MB and GB Ethernet only permit an equally >>> fixed amount of bandwidth to each device. In 10/100, >>> the limit is 10MB. I don't what the fixed amount is >>> for GB. >>> _________________________________________________ >>> >>> For information concerning the MUGLO List just click on >>> >>> http://muglo.on.ca/Pages/joinus.html >>> >>> Our Archives can be viewed at >>> >>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/muglo >>> >>> Don't forget to periodically check our web site at: >>> >>> http://muglo.on.ca/ >> >> _________________________________________________ >> >> For information concerning the MUGLO List just click on >> >> http://muglo.on.ca/Pages/joinus.html >> >> Our Archives can be viewed at >> >> http://www.freelists.org/archives/muglo >> >> Don't forget to periodically check our web site at: >> >> http://muglo.on.ca/ >> > >_________________________________________________ > >For information concerning the MUGLO List just click on > > http://muglo.on.ca/Pages/joinus.html > >Our Archives can be viewed at > > http://www.freelists.org/archives/muglo > >Don't forget to periodically check our web site at: > > http://muglo.on.ca/ > > -- Rob M. VanHooren T +1 905 273-1150 C +1 647 393-2676 M +1 905 272-2549 F +1 514-370-4957 W robv@xxxxxxxxxx P rob_vanhooren@xxxxxxx MSN wanguru@xxxxxxxxxxx _________________________________________________ For information concerning the MUGLO List just click on http://muglo.on.ca/Pages/joinus.html Our Archives can be viewed at http://www.freelists.org/archives/muglo Don't forget to periodically check our web site at: http://muglo.on.ca/