cnolan@vax1.tcd.ie (11/15/90)
Hi,
We're considering going to 10BaseT to connect up one of our buildings that is
already wired for RS-232. From what I've seen this would seem to be the way to
go.
Could anyone just fill me in on the specs for 10BaseT, ie max cable lenght,
type of cable, etc. Should the existing wiring be suitable?
Also can anyone advise on a suitable hub/concentrator with 10Base2 in, multiple
10BaseT out. What are the favourite cards for use in PCs? We currently use
D-Link's DE 100.
Thanks in advance ...
--
===============================================================================
Conor Nolan Phone: 772941 (X1741)
Microelectronics Dept. Fax: 772442
Trinity College
Dublin 2 cnolan@mee.tcd.ie
IRELAND ampere::cnolan
===============================================================================amirza@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (anmar mirza) (11/19/90)
We have recently started installing 10baseT to replace our UB ethernet equipment. The standard length for ethernet transmission over tp wire is 100 meters (328 feet). Using rg8 you can go 500 meters(1640 feet). Using rg58 you can go 185 meters (573 feet). This is according to the specs published. We experienced some troubles using teflon plenum tp wire due to the change in capacitance in the wire, this reduced the maximum tp distance to around 180 feet. It will not work on non tp phone(or rs232) wire. It will work through 4 wire tp data circuits. All in all, I am not impressed by the David Systems that we have purchased, our Ungermannn Bass equipment was more flexible and has better management (once the bugs were worked out, we were a beta test site) software, but David Systems promises more in the near future. Anmar Mirza # If a product is good, # The two best ways # Space, humans next EMT-A # they will stop making # to my heart are # goal in the race N9ISY (tech) # it. Unless it is # sex, and the # for immortality. Director AESL # designed to kill. # descending aorta # --- me
robel2@MYTHOS.UCS.INDIANA.EDU (Allen Robel) (12/06/90)
>All in all, I am not impressed by the David Systems that we have >purchased, our Ungermannn Bass equipment was more flexible and has >better management (once the bugs were worked out, we were a beta >test site) software, but David Systems promises more in the near >future. As someone who has been working directly with DAVID System's network management, I would like to give my impressions of their management capabilities. DAVID, like many other hub vendors, has implemented SNMP based management in their hubs. I have been using the new Nyser code to query the DAVID MIB and have found no problems with either their MIB I implementation or their vendor-specific MIB. Their specific MIB includes a very rich set of port-level, module-level and chassis-level information and control (through the SNMP SET mechanism). This information includes things that we could never get with our UB hubs like out of spec frequencies, late collisions, normal collisions, jabbers, start frame delimiter errors, frame check, runts, giants, etc. The hubs also send traps reliably and appropriately and offers the ability to send its traps to up to 10 other hosts. Trap types include: 1) Authentication 2) Cold Start 3) Module Failure 4) Module Recovery 5) Module Power Supply Failure 6) Port Partition/Partitioned 7) Port Jabbering I've implemented a shell script to query the hubs and send mail to selected personnel should a hub respond with a value that is out of an acceptable range for a variable. I never would have been able to do this using the proprietary management that UB offered. UB has announced SNMP capability and I'm sure that they will make good on this so I'm not knocking UB; I'm simply defending DAVID Systems as I feel that their management capabilities and their product are much better than what was implied by Mr. Mirza. regards, Allen Robel robel2@mythos.ucs.indiana.edu University Computing Services ROBELR@IUJADE.BITNET Network Research & Planning voice: (812)855-7171 Indiana University FAX: (812)855-8299