HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Is Starlan really Ethernet?
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:33:02 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <7520@public.BTR.COM> thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) writes:
>>Starlan is vaguely similar to 10BaseT, but is not in any way compatible
>>with it.
>
>Is this REALLY true?
>I'm curious, because the original StarLAN was 1Mbit/S and bears the label
>"802.3e-1988 1BASE5 StarLAN 1Mbit/S Ethernet".

Just because it is 802.3something does not mean it is Ethernet.  Just because
the label on it says "Ethernet" doesn't mean it is either.  Ethernet --
which is, mind you, a registered trademark -- refers to a specific set of
networking technologies running at 10Mb/s.  Somebody got overenthusiastic
with the labelling.

The 802.3 core standard doesn't define any specific data rate.  In practice,
the 1Mb/s variant of it is a historical curiosity only.  It is not in any
way compatible with 10Mb/s technology like Ethernet.

>There are bridges from StarLAN to the newer StarLAN-10 (at 10Mbit/S).
>StarLAN has always been CSMA/CD, etc. and companies such as Hewlett-Packard
>have interoperated StarLAN with "conventional" Ethernet.

You can bridge anything to anything, just about.  If "interoperable" is
to have any meaning when talking about low levels like this, it can't
realistically mean "can be connected together if you put enough electronics
in between".
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Lan wire proximity to electrical
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:24:17 GMT

  How close is it safe (transmission integrity-wise) to place 10baseT
wire runs to electrical outlets and to electrical wiring which is in-
the-wall and in flexible conduit. The 10baseT stuff will be outside
the wall in raceway. Also, what clearances should be used for a punch-
down block for the 10baseT ?



-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
From: pat@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Pat Thaler)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:21:06 GMT
Subject: Re: SQE
Organization: HP Roseville Networks Division
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet

In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet, oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov writes:

    (Sorry, but I've never met Pat, so I'm not sure on gender.)
No need to be sorry.  The name is rather ambiguous and if I choose to use
it rather than Patricia, I figure I can't complain about the results.
Patricia just seems more formal than I feel and I've used Pat for a lot
of years before notes made the ambiguity a problem so I don't plan to change.
Gender is female.

                             SQE, Heartbeat, and Ethernet
                        (Or, Why does everyone look confused?)


Actually, SQE test and heartbeat are virtually identical.  (Virtually because
there is one timing spec that is slightly looser in IEEE 802.3 than in
Ethernet Rev. 2.)  The two specs just used different names.  IEEE 802.3's
SQE is equivalent to Ethernet's Collision Presence.  (SQE stands for Signal
Quality Error and derives from the idea that the MAU detects collision by
seeing something wrong with the quality of the signal on the media.)

Kevin's description of the reason for SQE test/Heartbeat is accurate.

Pat (Patricia Ann) Thaler

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: ccewch@nuscc.nus.sg (Wong Chee Heng)
Subject: IEEE thin vs EthernetII thin MAU
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:33:32 GMT


I know that there are differences between the two, but not very sure how 
exactly they are, can someone pls highlight some of the differences to me? 
In particular, how does these two types of MAU is being used for diferent
equipement with AUI interfaces (is there a diffence between IEEE AUI and
Ethernet II AUI ?) ? What will happen if the two are mixed up and how to
prevent that from happen?

Thank you in advance.


--
Wong Chee Heng
Systems Programmer
From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: 10basT Question
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:07:29 GMT
Organization: Maverick International Inc.

In article <53020001@hpscit.sc.hp.com> karl@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Karl Watanabe) writes:
>In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet, jonathan@netcom.com (Jonathan Ridder) writes:

>> The crossover cable is
>> wired so that the receive pairs connect to the transmit pairs.
>
>The 10baseT chip transceiver from AMD automatically has polarity reversal.
>Therefore it wouldn't be necessary to use a crossover cable.

From what I've read, many 10baseT devices have auto polarity reversal.  I
would guess this would swap the V+ and V- of a transmit and/or receive
pair, which is to say change the polarity of *a* pair.  Will these also
actually swap the T and R pairs as well?
From: STREATER@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Lan wire proximity to electrical
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:34:48 GMT
 <BrsxpJ.GEL@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <BrsxpJ.GEL@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
says:
>
>People who have tried things like this, including some truly horrid
>demos at places like Interop, say there is absolutely no problem.
>Properly-designed differential transmission over twisted pair is *very*
>noise resistant.
>--

How about thick- or thinnet running the length of our accelerator?  We have
both inside the klystron gallery, a long (2 miles) metal building with lots of
klystrons (about one every 100' I think) which put out several Mwatts of RF
power each, although most of it of course goes down to waveguides to the
accelerator below. But there must be some leakage - this ought to be a hostile
environment if ever there was one!

tim
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: dcarr@gandalf.ca (Dave Carr)
Subject: Re: Link for two LANs
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:48:21 GMT

In <1992Jul29.184847.17503@news.acns.nwu.edu> jweiss@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jerry Weiss) writes:


>I have two lans (ethernet thin coax) in seperate buildings (across the
>street from each other) in which I need to link together.  While I have
>plenty of unshielded twisted pair running directly between the sites,
>bureaucratic hassles prevent me from running fiber, coax or rf between
>these sites.  What type of device would allow me to make this link and
>still achieve reasonble bandwidth?  I've seen some devices that run links
>over UTP at 56Kbit/sec, but that seems a tad slow for NFS mounts etc.
>Anyone aware of products that can utilize multiple lines to increase
>bandwidth?

You could use limited distance modems which run up to 640 Kbps.  You will
require 4 wires (2 twisted pairs).  We make such a beast, but I do not
know the distances it can handle.  I believe the farther you go, the
lower the bit rate supported.

Also, we make bridges with data compression.  Currently we support line
speeds up to 128 Kbps, but I personally will be trying to boost this to
256 Kbps or 384 Kbps shortly.

I don't know where NWU is, but assuming it's somewhere near British
Columbia, you can call our Victoria office (604) 736-2611 or the 
Colorado office at (303) 291-9515.  They can help you with the LDS
modem.  To get information on the bridge, since it's sold through
distributors, call 1-800-354-4224.
-- 
Dave Carr               | dcarr@gandalf.ca       | It's what you learn, 
Principal Designer      | TEL (613) 723-6500     | after you know it all,
Gandalf Data Limited    | FAX (613) 226-1717     | that counts. 
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
Subject: Re: SQE
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:07:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.080956.1@ptavv.llnl.gov>, oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov writes:
>Now if I could just convince everyone who writes or has written a driver for an
> EtherNet device to log collision detect errors for logging and SNMP purposes,
> I'll really be happy.


You'll be almost the only one.

I've fought for years with hosts of people who are deeply offended that
Silicon Graphics drivers complain about "late collisions", which are
rather more serious than turned off SQE or even excessive collisions.
It was even necessary to be quite forceful with later ethernet driver
writers, including the fellow who wrote the SEEQ driver previously
mentioned.  (Not Dave.)

Everyone seems to think that their net would be just fine if only
SGI boxes would be like others and just not worry about lost packets.

A 1% packet loss with the popular default NFS timeouts reduces NFS
speeds to at most about 100KBytes/sec, or down as much as 90% from
NFS/ethernet speeds.


Vernon Schryver,  vjs@sgi.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: werme@alliant.com (Ric Werme)
Subject: Re: Lan wire proximity to electrical
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:14:46 GMT

In article <92204.133448STREATER@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> STREATER@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>How about thick- or thinnet running the length of our accelerator?  We have
>both inside the klystron gallery, a long (2 miles) metal building with lots of
>klystrons (about one every 100' I think) which put out several Mwatts of RF
>power each, although most of it of course goes down to waveguides to the
>accelerator below. But there must be some leakage - this ought to be a hostile
>environment if ever there was one!

I'm not about to make any promises about *anything* close to MW transmitters,
but I assume your Klystrons run in the Ghz range.  All that Ethernet really
wants is 10 Mhz plus several harmonics.  Plus, I imagine any Ghz that does get
on the wire will attenuate pretty quickly.

Try disconnecting the terminator at one end an turn on the Klystrons.  If you
see a blue corona from the center conductor or other sharp points, switch to
FDDI!  (*After* turning off the Klystrons!)  :-)
-- 
| A pride of lions               | Eric J Werme                 |
| A gaggle of geese		 | 77 Tater St			|
| An odd lot of programmers      | Mont Vernon NH  03057	|
| A Constitution of Libertarians | Phone: 603-673-3993		|
From: adrian@cnmat.CNMAT.Berkeley.EDU (Adrian Freed)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: 10BaseT over STP
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:59:38 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@cnmat.Berkeley.EDU
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: chowning.cnmat.berkeley.edu

How do I wire the shielding when I run 10BaseT over Shielded Twisted Pair?
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: kwia4000@wncs.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Manfred Kwiatkowski)
Subject: Re: Link for two LANs
Reply-To: kwiatkowski@zrz.tu-berlin.de
Organization: Tech. Univ. of Berlin, Central Computing Facility
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:09:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.184847.17503@news.acns.nwu.edu>, jweiss@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jerry Weiss) writes:
|> 
|> I have two lans (ethernet thin coax) in seperate buildings (across the
|> street from each other) in which I need to link together.  While I have
|> plenty of unshielded twisted pair running directly between the sites,
|> bureaucratic hassles prevent me from running fiber, coax or rf between
|> these sites.  What type of device would allow me to make this link and
|> still achieve reasonble bandwidth?  I've seen some devices that run links
|> over UTP at 56Kbit/sec, but that seems a tad slow for NFS mounts etc.
|> Anyone aware of products that can utilize multiple lines to increase
|> bandwidth?

If the distance on the UTP wire is less than 800 ft. you could try
to get hold on some 1Base5 equipment. (for technical details follow
the thread on Is StarLAN really Ethernet? in this group ;-) ) 
With 2 WD8003S StarCard PLUS and a hub you can build a remote bridge.
Take two PCs with a WD/SMC ethernet card, put in the StarLAN cards
and install the PCbridge software Vance Morrison developped at your 
university. We frequently use such a setup for temporary installations
such as exhibitions where our phone people can furnish a wire but the 
distance is too big for 10BaseT. If its works it is probably a very 
cost effective solution.

|> Thanks
|> 
|> Jerry S. Weiss	  "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the antimatter!"
|> j-weiss@nwu.edu    Dept. Medicine, Northwestern Univ. Medical School
|> 

Hope this helps...
--
Manfred Kwiatkowski         kwiatkowski@zrz.tu-berlin.de
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Early and Late Collision
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:46:20 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Jul29.012447.4664@gecko.uucp> mpham@gecko.uucp (Michael Pham) writes:
>Could someone tell me what early and late detection are?

I assume you mean early and late collisions, since the issue is when the
collision occurs, not when it is detected.

On a contention-based network like Ethernet, some collisions are normal,
because two nodes just happen to start transmissions at more or less the
same time on a previously-quiet network.  However, a properly-configured
Ethernet has an important property:  all nodes agree on whether a collision
occurred or not.  This consensus has to be reached fairly early in a
transmission attempt, because the transmission may be fairly short.  (The
need for this consensus is why Ethernet has a minimum packet length, to
ensure that the transmission will not end before consensus is achieved.)
An early collision is just a normal collision.

Once the necessary time for consensus has elapsed and no collision has
been seen, all nodes should agree that there is a transmission in progress.
A properly-functioning Ethernet node will not attempt to transmit between
seeing that somebody else is transmitting and the end of that transmission.
A late collision is one occurring after consensus should have been achieved.
It means something is badly wrong somewhere -- either a misconfigured
network or a malfunctioning node.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet

In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet, avraham@itexjct.jct.ac.il (avraham shir-el) writes:

    how sensitive is 10bT to additional connectors between the node and the hub?
    i know that w/ 10b2 additional bnc's on the segment, (ex. at the ducting)
    	will reduce the max # of nodes u can put on the segment, and/or
    	reduce the max length of the segment.

    with 10bT, if i have a patch panel between the node and the hub, using
    	twisted-pair cable for the patch cords, will i need to reduce
    	the max total length of the cable due to loss at each connector?
    tnx in advance
    ams

When we wrote the 10BASE-T standard, we allowed for a wall jack and a 
patch panel with 100 m of cable.  

The limit on number of connectors in 10BASE2 is primarily due to the
additional DC loop resistance added.  The collision detection depends
on this DC loop resistance.

In 10BASE-T, DC loop resistance is not significant and the limitation
is due less to the properties of the connector than the fact that it is
connecting two pieces of cable with different impedance.  This impedance
mismatch causes loss of signal (attenuation).   It also reflects some signal
back which can hit other impedance mismatches and return delayed as noise.

So, two things have to be checked if additional connectors are present,
attenuation and jitter.  Only the former is reduced by shortening the
cable length.

Pat Thaler
From: geoff@alsvid.une.edu.au (Geoff Hill)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: 10basT Question
Date: 21 Jul 92 01:00:48 GMT
Organization: University of New England - Northern Rivers (Lismore)

Excuse my ignorance, I'm very new to 10baseT.
Is it possible to link 2 PCs together using 10baseT only. ie. A 10basT card in
each PC attached over a single run of UTP.

	PC-1 ----------------------------------------------- PC-2
				UTP Level 4

Or do you require some type of hub/repeater between the 2 PCs ?

Please E-MAIL replies to: geoff@alsvid.une.edu.au
THANKS.
-- 
 Geoff Hill				        
 University of New England - Northern Rivers.	          
 Lismore,  Australia.				
 E-mail:geoff@alsvid.une.edu.au
From: tdrake@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Tim Drake - E41)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: SQE, Once more
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:43:57 GMT
Organization: NSWC


   I've read all the postings on SQE I've seen in the last two
weeks (many). I'm still unclear on a few points. SQE should
help me find problems in faulty MAU's, but how?? Say I'm working
on a Unix system, what command will report the error's I shoud see
if I have SQE turned on and the MAU is faulty. In short how can
SQE help me find problems.

  My other confussion is if it looks like a collision to my MAU
(the "CP collision packet" LED lights up) how does the system
tell the difference between the "test" and an actual collision?

  I must admit that we turn SQE off religiosly because of problems
we had with it being enabled and connected to repeater equipment.  



        Tim Drake                   NAVSWD : Navy Dahlgren Va.
        tdrake@relay.nswc.navy.mil


   
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: dcarr@gandalf.ca (Dave Carr)
Subject: Re: Gandalf Micro Bridges
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:40:37 GMT

In <1992Jul21.085435.581@mala.bc.ca> dunnett@mala.bc.ca (Malcolm Dunnett) writes:

>In article <1992Jul21.140056.4973@tridom.com>,
>     mwr@tridom.uucp (Mark Reardon) writes:
>> 
>> Let me get this straight.  The bridge draws power thru the port
>> of the repeater, uses what it needs, and then allows the tranceiver
>> to draw its power thru the bridge.  And the combined load of the 
>> bridge and tranceiver doesn't exceed the spec'ed load of a single
>> tranceiver.

AUI's vary in their drive ability.  .5A to unlimited.  Mini-MAU's
vary too.  Our bridge may not work will all manufacturers equipment,
but we will make sure it works with the vast majority (and ours to be
sure ;-))

>>              Is the tranceiver part of the bridge or have external
>> ones been specified that don't draw the maximum power?

Remains to be seen.  We make transceivers too, so there could be a
variant either way.  Obviously there is a large installed base which
have their own transceivers already.  But, the separate bridge/
transceiver solution may require more power from the AUI.

>     It requires an external transeciver. They don't mention any
>particular brand of transceiver that is required. I don't know how much
>room there is in the specs - do typical transceivers draw the maximum
>power that the controller is required to supply? 

NO.  Our 10BaseT draws 150 mA, Allied Telesis Fiber MAU about 250 mA.
Your mileage may vary.

>>                                                          I beleive
>> this can be done but I would be wary.  Additionally, why not just
>> get a local bridge instead of a repeater and a bridge?

>    If this device works as advertised I could take a 12 port 10baseT
>repeater and attach the bridge, this would allow me to bridge a workgroup
>of up to 12 stations onto the backbone for a total cost of less than
>$1500. The mainstream hubs I've seen that could do this ( ie 12 port
>repeater plus bridge module ) cost more than 3 times this amount. If
>we assume I already have the repeater and just need a bridge, then a
>standalone local bridge costs at least 4 times what this device costs,
>even building one myself from a PC clone would cost about twice as
>much. Granted they provide a lot more functionality, but for a simple "keep
>these guys off the backbone" application the mainstream solution is
>overkill and this sounds like an ideal solution.

Exactly!  I couldn't have said it better.

>I'm sure the folks at Gandalf are following this thread, please jump
>in and correct me if I've gotten anything seriously wrong, I'm just
>repeating what I've gleaned from some sales literature.

Advanced Sales literature at that.   
-- 
Dave Carr               | dcarr@gandalf.ca       | It's what you learn, 
Principal Designer      | TEL (613) 723-6500     | after you know it all,
Gandalf Data Limited    | FAX (613) 226-1717     | that counts. 
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.lans.ethernet:1418 comp.unix.bsd:2547
From: guido@gvr.win.tue.nl (Guido van Rooij)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Western Digital Ethernet Cards for the IBM PC
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:17:08 GMT
Followup-To: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Organization: Guido's home 486 box

In article <l6mgj4INNhsk@neuro.usc.edu> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>What is the difference between the WD Elite series and each of the old
>WD8003e, WD8003ebt, WD8013 etc cards?  How much onboard memory?  Are the
>Elite's equivalent to the WD8013's?
>
>Thanks, AJ

Just another name. It is NOT the same as a wd8013 since the 8003<whatever>
cards are 8bit and the 8013 are 16bit.
Hope this helps.

-Guido
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: ccewch@nuscc.nus.sg (Wong Chee Heng)
Subject: FAQ
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 06:47:17 GMT

I am new to this group. May I know if there is a FAQ for this group?

--
Wong Chee Heng
Systems Programmer

From: pat@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Pat Thaler)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:04:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Series of general questions
Organization: HP Roseville Networks Division
From: edwards@world.std.com (Jonathan Edwards)
Subject: 10BASE-T at home
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:44:34 GMT

I want to prewire my new house for future installation of a LAN.
Running extra pairs for 10BASE-T seems the most flexible.
But a post on comp.dcom.telecom states that 10BASE-T is not FCC class B, and
in fact generates tons of RFI, making it unsuitable for home use.
He recommends running 10BASE-2 coax (RG58) instead.
Does anyone have any expertise or experience to share on this matter?
Thanks - Jonathan

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: hyder@mrbean.scd.ucar.edu (Paul Hyder)
Subject: Re: Early and Late Collision
Organization: Scientific Computing Divison/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:41:27 GMT

>> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> }Once the necessary time for consensus has elapsed and no collision has
>> }been seen, all nodes should agree that there is a transmission in progress.
>> }A properly-functioning Ethernet node will not attempt to transmit between
>> }seeing that somebody else is transmitting and the end of that transmission.
>> }A late collision is one occurring after consensus should have been achieved.
>> }It means something is badly wrong somewhere -- either a misconfigured
>>                                                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> }network or a malfunctioning node.
>> 
>> Most likely a segment longer than the longest allowed.

I just can't let this one pass.  In my experience single segment length
is rarely the cause of late collisions.  It is too easy to find and
fix. ;{)  In recent years the ones I've seen have included bad
transceivers, bad repeaters, too many repeaters, and multiport
transceivers three deep.  Henry's "misconfigured" is closer to most
reality.

BTW I've seen short collisions exactly twice:  Once when a net had
been installed with intrusive taps in multiple barrel connected groups
of two to seven taps and once recently with overdriven fiber ethernet.
These are also not supposed to be possible, unfortunately many lan
analyzers can't or won't capture them.  [Isolating the barrel
connected transceivers was truly a pain.  Those collisions were
2-6bytes long.  FYI The fiber overdrive created a bunch of 8 byte
collisions.]
	Paul Hyder
	High Performance Systems and Networking
	NCAR