Re: TI-H: I'm baaaaaacccccckkkk!!!


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: TI-H: I'm baaaaaacccccckkkk!!!





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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Follow-Ups: References: