Re: TI-H: I'm baaaaaacccccckkkk!!!
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TI-H: I'm baaaaaacccccckkkk!!!
my bad... I mentioned the damn terminators before, and for some reason, forgot
about them.
But it's in a line, which is close to a ring that a physical star layout.
But thinnet is great... cut one connection, and oops! the whole network is dead...
CK
Adam Fritzler wrote:
> May I ask...what the heck are you talking about???
>
> 10base2/5 will never work in a physical (or logical, for that matter)
> configuration. If you loop the cable around, you'll be quite amused at
> the effects (although the NICs and software probably won't be). You must
> have 50ohm terminators at the opposing ends in order to absorb frames (or
> they'll be reflected and bounced and mutilated and all sorts of other
> stuff). (thinnet/cheapernet is 10base2, thicknet/real ethernet is 10base5
> (the latter used much larger coax than the former, though I don't remmber
> the exact guage)) You never need a terminator for each machine. And I
> assume by "an adapter for the physical interface" you mean a transciever
> with vampire taps, both of which went out of style in the mid 80s...that
> was the point of using base2 over base5 is that you didn't need those.
>
> The odd-looking snap-on thing your talking about is the hermaphroditic
> connectors I babbled about in one of my other messages. The hermaphros
> were 4conductors plus a shield (they used IBM Type 1 cabling (standard
> shielded 2pair twisted)). The 9pin thing your talking about is slightly
> different. Its for shielded connections as well, but it's hardly ever
> used in large-scale installation. There's only 4 pins+sheild used there
> anyway, and therefore can be converted to hermaphro or IBM Type 3 cabling
> (aka IEEE Cat3 2pair unshielded twisted pair (phone wire) but only when
> using an isolation circuit).
>
> Also, you didn't have to use the RJ45 jack, an RJ11 works fine (RJ45
> usually means Cat5 which is overkill for an installation that mearly runs
> at 16mhz (Cat3's top limit it 20mhz), the extra pairs are pretty useless
> too.
>
> There were other logical token rings (and there were also physical token
> rings), but I don't have a standards book handy.
>
> af
>
> On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Christopher Kalos wrote:
>
> >
> > The ring part is correct, the token part is not. Thinnet is still Ethernet,
> > so no tokens are involved. 10Base2 connectors almost force you to use a
> > ring, unless you want a terminator for each machine and an adapter for the
> > physical interface.
> > Token Ring connectors do not use the thinnet-type connectors, opting for a
> > 9-pin connector leading to a VERY odd-looking IBM "snap-on" genderless
> > connector, or good old RJ45.
> > Physically, the only rings I've seen are on 10Base2 (Ethernet)
> > Logically, only Token Ring and Arcnet.
> > Prove me wrong if you can, I'd like to avoid embarrassing myself whenever
> > possible =]
> >
> > CK
> >
> > David Knaack wrote:
> >
> > > >From: Christopher Kalos <raptorone@geocities.com>
> > > >And Grant, Token Ring never needed a RING. it acts as if it works in a
> > > >ring, you can connect them similarly to ethernet connections in terms
> > > of
> > > >the physical hookup.
> > >
> > > Typicaly IBM token ring is a physical star, logical ring.
> > > I just depends on if you are talking physical or logical
> > > configuration. Some systems use a token ring (ie logical ring)
> > > on thinnet.
> > >
> > > DK
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________
> > > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Adam Fritzler |
> afritz@delphid.ml.org | Animals who are not penguins can
> afritz@iname.com | can only wish they were.
> http://delphid.ml.org/~afritz/ | -- Chicago Reader
> http://www.pst.com/ | 15 Oct 1982
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References: