Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:40:43 -0800 (PST)
From:      Tom <tom@sdf.com>
To:        John Kelly <jak@cetlink.net>
Cc:        Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us>, Adam Turoff <AdamT@smginc.com>, hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>, Robert Glover <rob@f-body.org>
Subject:   Re: Token Ring for FreeBSD yet?
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980224213528.12581L-100000@misery.sdf.com>
In-Reply-To: <34f5bd29.7750741@mail.cetlink.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, John Kelly wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:19:21 -0800 (PST), Tom <tom@sdf.com> wrote:
> 
> >  Yes, it is true.  16mbs token ring is quite fast.  Token-passing is a
> >bit of problem with large numbers of stations.  Token networks make very
> >efficient use of network bandwidth though.
> >
> >  However, any kind of switched ethernet still blows it away.  It does
> >away with collision contention, and makes ethernet full duplex.
> 
> As long as all stations are directly connected to the switch.  But in
> networks I've seen, only the bandwidth hogs are connected directly to
> the switch while the average user station is still attached to a hub.

  You have to be connected to the switch for your ethernet to switched.
You can't call an unswitched segment that just happens to touch a switch
at some point a switched LAN.

  Besides I don't know anyone who does that.  Nothing livens up a 10BT
network like a Cisco Catalyst.

Tom


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.980224213528.12581L-100000>