From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 24 21:58:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA12516 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:58:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.213.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA12428 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:58:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@sdf.com) Received: from tom by misery.sdf.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #3) id 0y7ZaG-0003J1-00; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:40:44 -0800 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:40:43 -0800 (PST) From: Tom To: John Kelly cc: Greg Lehey , Chris Dillon , Adam Turoff , hackers , Robert Glover Subject: Re: Token Ring for FreeBSD yet? In-Reply-To: <34f5bd29.7750741@mail.cetlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, John Kelly wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:19:21 -0800 (PST), Tom 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