Talk:Ethernet hub

message: I don't believe the statement "Hubs remain a very popular device for small networks because of their low cost" is accurate.  Especially when this article also states that "The availability of low-priced network switches has largely rendered hubs obsolete but they are still seen in older installations and more specialized applications."  Hubs are fairly obsolete and mostly used for specialized situations such as packet captures.  I am considering deleting this sentence.  Switches are cheap.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daprofessor (talk • contribs) 01:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate statement

message: Computer Networking WikiProject Support and Importance: This article was already supported by the Computer Networking WikiProject, marked with unknown importance, so I kept this article under the project's support, as it seems befitting, but marked it with top importance because ethernet hubs enable basic connections, the fundamental components of networks.
Class: I rated this article as a stub-class article because it has absolutely no sources. According to the WikiProject Computing assessment page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment#Grades), if an article has no listed sources, it is a stub, regardless how informative, well-written, or long it is. This is simply because such articles are not verifiable, which Wikipedia holds in very high regard. 
Importance and Portal: The article falls under the description of low importance from the WikiProject Computing assessment page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment#Grades). The Computing WikiProject is concerned with fundamental components for computation, not networking connections. However, the article is not completely unrelated to the very general Computing WikiProject and falls under many subcategories of the Computing WikiProject (which is why I added this Computing WikiProject template and the computing portal).
Infobox: This article is technically lacking an infobox, so I noted that.
Computer Hardware task force WikiProject Support and Importance: An ethernet hub is obviously a piece of hardware, so I marked this article as falling under the Computer Hardware task force WikiProject. Since this piece of hardware is the sole object that allows for computer networks, I marked this article with High-importance under the Computer Hardware task force Wikiproject.
Computer science WikiProject Support and Importance: This article obviously falls under the general category of computer science since it is related to computers and allows computer networking. However, since ethernet hubs do not form the basis of any general concepts in computer science, this article seems to be of low importance with respect to this science.
WikiProject Websites Support and Importance: Since network sites can be accessed from ethernet hubs, it seems that this article relates to the Websites WikiProject. However, the relation is very indirect, since ethernet hubs, being hardware, are qualitatively different from websites and any of the components required for the creation of websites. Hence, I rated this article as being of low importance in this area.
--Some Old Man (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of the Parameters Added in the WikiProject Computing Template. 

message: Anyone up for giving this the proper name of "Ethernet Repeater" with a redirect from the common name of "Ethernet Hub".
Technically, hub describes the topology, not the function.  The fact that repeaters were the first hubs does not make it correct.
Gah4 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose renaming. Per WP:COMMONNAME, calling it "hub" like everyone else does (or did) is correct. If necessary (I don't see why it would be), the article could explain that the name is wrong (with sources). Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I oppose renaming. Repeaters are used to extend the physical reach of segments (esp. 10Base2/5), hubs are used to build star topology networks (10BaseT/100BaseTX). While they are technically the same (hubs are multiport repeaters), the scope of this article concentrates on the hub function. Zac67 (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly the difference.  A hub, as either a repeater or switch/bridge, is used to build a star network, yet this article only describes the repeater.  While many networking books might make this mistake, one might hope that it is done correctly here. It seems to me a combination of the fact that the first hubs were repeaters, and that hub is shorter to write, led to this situation.  Gah4 (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree that "repeater" is considered proper now but back when these things were in common use, everyone called them hubs and so that's probably still the WP:COMMONNAME. --Kvng (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: "Any old networking book" doesn't necessarily qualify - many authors were/are wildly imprecise when it comes to naming things (from what I read). BTW, should we integrate network switch into network bridge as well since a switch is nothing else than a multiport bridge device? -- Zac67 (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My favorite are the books by Rich Seifert, who wrote much of the original ethernet standard, and still works on newer standards.  Two are "Gigabit Ethernet" which, despite the name, covers slower ethernet standards, and "The Switch Book."   Yes, switch and bridge should be appropriately linked.  Note that Rich mentions more than once as regard to multiport bridge, the converse being the single port bridge isn't very useful.  (It seems that there is no English word meaning "more than two."  Gah4 (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

text: When switches were introduced they were not called hubs. They still are not called hubs. There are other non-Ethernet network devices called hubs but there is no ambiguity in calling what is techincally known as a multiport repeater an Ethernet hub. --Kvng (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "it's not a car it's a volkswagen"  Note that marketing people don't like to call a product by its ordinary name, they want their product to stand out as special and different.  Note that even the "switch" name was invented by marketing instead of the normal ethernet term, bridge.   (and note that there are no single port repeaters, bridges, or switches.)  Gah4 (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps true, but I don't understand how this argues for a title change. --Kvng (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Oppose at least capital letters implying it was a proper noun seems totally misleading. There were all kinds of them. Much better would be to point out the ambiguity of the term in the body, with links to other related topics. For example, I see multiport repeater is an article about the general concept, which is fine, except it has zero citations and does not even mention the word "Ethernet" or any of the other kinds of repeaters there are (wireless ones of all sorts). Similarly, network hub redirects here, which covers up all the other kinds of hubs in networks (logical ones as well as physical ones). Especially as wireless networks are becoming so common at the ends compared to wired ones (and bridged hybrid nets), this seems just a stopgap. Perhaps eventually network hub would become a disambig page to articles on the various kinds, perhaps even relevant to broadcast communication network for example, or star network. W Nowicki (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Just wondering, as the above was about six years ago, is ethernet hub still the WP:COMMONNAME for a repeater?  Seems to me that eventually repeaters will be forgotten, and switching hubs will be what people know as hubs. That is, WP:COMMONNAME changes with time. Gah4 (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename this page? 

message: The grammar is atrocious..
"There are plenty of features of an Ethernet hub which the people need to be aware of. It is basically used in the LAN systems"
Either that or written by someone of which English is not their native language.
This is English Wikipedia..right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  did a third grader write this? 

message: Sorry, I have to revert this. There are so many issues it's very hard to salvage
* passive Ethernet hubs do not exist
* stackable hubs are not necessarily manageable, they've only got a special stacking port (to circumvent 5-4-3 problems)
* a switching hub is a network switch, no repeater hub
* the 'intelligent hub' text is nonsense, please read up on CSMA/CD and Ethernet in general
* text formatting was totally off
Zac67 (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hub "types" and "explanations" 

message: According to this article, the 5-4-3 rule applies to 10baseT.  It does't.  The 5-4-3 rule applies to coaxial (10base5 and 10base2) ethernet, along with FOIRLs.  For 10baseT, you can have up to six segments of (about) maximum 150m length, as long as your transceiver cables (if you have them) aren't too long. (Normally you don't have transceiver cables, but the rules don't know that.)   Gah4 (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The 5-4-3 rule applies to all repeated 10 Mbit/s varieties, regardless of medium. Don't forget that it's a rule of thumb and not the exact science it's commonly sold for. --Zac67 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the rule is based, in part, on the collision detection method for coaxial ethernet.  But there is an important reason for wanting 5 repeaters: it allows a central repeater, attatched to some repeaters, each attached to more repeaters. You can't do that with only four.    For 10baseT, you can have five repeaters, six segments, with a total of about 1900m of cable.  Six segments of 150m (cat 5 cable for 10baseT) is only 900m. Gah4 (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  6-5-4-3-2-1 

message: Do they exist: (Soho-)Routers with builtin hub instead of a switch ? --Itu (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hub routers? 

message: : A hub works at the data-link layer (layer 2) of the OSI model because it maintains a spanning tree.  It is often incorrectly thought to be a layer 1 device.
This is utter nonsense. A repeater hub does not maintain a spanning tree anywhere. It does not work with any layer 2 information at all. Please stop editing this page and reread Spanning Tree Protocol, Network switch and OSI model. --Zac67 (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layer 2 device? 

message: There is no mention of using a hub for capturing packets?  Modern devices like a tap or switch that supports monitor mode are relatively expensive or not available to consumers.  Hubs are still an excellent low-cost solution for capturing packets on a small (LAN) network. Tmursch (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Ethernet hub#Uses. ;-) --Zac67 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Packet capture tool?