Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 12:42:45 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 1000baseTX? Message-ID: <20050305204245.GF89312@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <20050305115604.GD4394@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <20050303.181823.216808984.kasahara@nc.kyushu-u.ac.jp> <20050304233814.U4084@carver.gumbysoft.com> <20050305115604.GD4394@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Jeremy wrote this message on Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 22:56 +1100:
> On Fri, 2005-Mar-04 23:39:36 -0800, Doug White wrote:
> >On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Yoshiaki Kasahara wrote:
> >
> >> In man pages, dmesg and ifconfig of FreeBSD5, GbE operation over
> >> twisted pair is mostly referred as '1000baseTX'. I guess most of them
> >> should be replaced by '1000baseT'. 1000base"TX" and 1000base"T" are
> >> different standard and they are not compatible ("TX" needs CAT6 cable
> >> and uses pairs in different way). Also 1000baseTX support is very
> >> rare yet. I'm sorry I'm not sure if some devices really support "TX".
> >
> >Do you have any documentation to back up this claim?
>
> I'm not sure about the pairing but there are two distinct standards
> for gigabit ethernet over UTP. Try typing "1000base-t 1000base-tx
> differences" (without the quotes) into Google.
The interesting thing about that is that most sites talking about the
differences say 1000base-T require CAT-5e cabling, though the IEEE
standard says only CAT-5.. :)
And also the IEEE standard makes no mention of 1000base-TX...
So, I would say most modern cards are 1000base-T compatible, though
making sure we don't futz with an older card's description will be
difficult...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050305204245.GF89312>