Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:59:24 -0800 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bandwidth Monitoring program Message-ID: <D203810B-339A-454A-B19D-EFC2757C2588@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <200612061908.MAA15281@lariat.net> References: <6199c3dc0612050848g16a0911dga145485ba14bf21f@mail.gmail.com> <200612060313.23621.josh@tcbug.org> <4576EB9D.2040300@elischer.org> <200612061153.26040.josh@tcbug.org> <200612061908.MAA15281@lariat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 6, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Brett Glass wrote: > Is adding a hub or a bridge a topology change? I'd argue that it > wasn't. Um. Adding a normal client machine to an existing hub or switch does not constitute a topology change. Adding a new hub or bridge most certainly would constitute a topology change. [ Add "IMHO" and salt if needed to season to taste. But if the result of a change can result in a loop-- ie, connecting two ports on the new hub to the rest of the network, or connecting two ports from a bridge to the same hub/switch-- or if the change might result in the network no longer being in compliance with the networking requirements (ie, you can only daisy-chain a limited number of hubs together before you break the timing tolerance)-- such changes do effect the topology... ] -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D203810B-339A-454A-B19D-EFC2757C2588>