From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Feb 12 22:26:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA00663 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:26:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mixcom.mixcom.com (mixcom.mixcom.com [198.137.186.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA00649 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:26:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mountin.man@mixcom.com) Received: by mixcom.mixcom.com (8.6.12/2.2) id AAA24558; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:27:52 -0600 Received: from dial193-41.mixcom.com(207.250.193.41) by mixcom.mixcom.com via smap (V1.3) id smaa24551; Fri Feb 13 00:27:45 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980213000314.006916e4@198.137.186.100> X-Sender: mmttnn@198.137.186.100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:03:14 -0600 To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" Subject: Re: Fw: FreeBSD firewall questions In-Reply-To: <199802121832.KAA16165@george.arc.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 10:32 AM 2/12/98 -0800, lamaster@george.arc.nasa.gov wrote: >I know this is nitpicking, but, by "coax" I assume you mean >"thin ethernet", "thin-net", whatever. Thick coax worked >just fine for me, much better than 10baseT when it first >came out, or trying to use 10baseT on older wiring. I'd expect it from you. ;) It was thin-net. >A clean thick ethernet coax installation was no problem - >except that it is expensive/time-consuming to install, >and, worse, to modify. Never say nor heard of any thick-net use in my experience. >However, 10baseT became very reliable about four years ago, >and, on a good cat-5 installation, is very nice, as everyone >knows. I agree that thin-net should be avoided like the >plague. I never had anything but trouble with it, even for >short distances. I was surprised to see it still being promoted >for cheap home/small-office installations, as I observed in an >electronics store a few nights ago. Especially now that you can >get inexpensive, small 10baseT hubs (but only for about the last >year or so has the price really come down) from several vendors. Then it became reliable before I started networking about 3 years ago. I'll admit thin-net is easy to set up, as someone mentioned, and a number of people I know use it at home. Mostly I'd guess because most places will give it away. Not to mention a hub is not needed and they don't know how to may a cross cable for only 2 systems. FWIW, I have worked with large coax, but only for radio applications. One of the few that would solder both the center _and_ shield on a PL-259. >Today, there is absolutely no reason to use anything other >than 10baseT (or 100baseT) on new installations. Always use >level-5 wiring. [And, I would recommend eliminating *all* >the thin-net coax from existing installations.] Amen! Jeff Mountin - Unix Systems TCP/IP networking mountin.man@mixcom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message