Talk:Ethernet: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Eric M Gearhart (→Bob Metcalfe / 3Com: new section) |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "locality of networks" to "locality of networks") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Bob Metcalfe / 3Com == | == Bob Metcalfe / 3Com == | ||
Should this article dip into more details about the "discovery" (creation? :) of Ethernet, Bob Metcalfe, 3Com, et al, or just stick to technical topics? [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 13:37, 23 August 2008 (CDT) | Should this article dip into more details about the "discovery" (creation? :) of Ethernet, e.g. [[Bob Metcalfe]], [[3Com]], et al, or just stick to technical topics? [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 13:37, 23 August 2008 (CDT) | ||
:Good question. I'm struggling with what should and should not be called Ethernet, since the term is applied to almost everything. At Nortel, someone called a 4000-km unrepeatered optical link, for undersea use, "Ethernet" because the endpoints had RJ45 connectors. | |||
:If we go back to the original work, we really need to go before Ethernet into ALOHANET and the idea of CSMA/CD. Sooner or later, there needs to be the spectrum of collision detection & retry, collision avoidance through time slotting and token passing, etc. | |||
:For most of what I discuss here, 802.3 is ''more'' correct, but, even there, I quickly have to examine 802.2, and possibly 802.1q. Did you look at locality of networks, which addresses some of the problematic terminology? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 13:44, 23 August 2008 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:21, 24 June 2024
Bob Metcalfe / 3Com
Should this article dip into more details about the "discovery" (creation? :) of Ethernet, e.g. Bob Metcalfe, 3Com, et al, or just stick to technical topics? Eric M Gearhart 13:37, 23 August 2008 (CDT)
- Good question. I'm struggling with what should and should not be called Ethernet, since the term is applied to almost everything. At Nortel, someone called a 4000-km unrepeatered optical link, for undersea use, "Ethernet" because the endpoints had RJ45 connectors.
- If we go back to the original work, we really need to go before Ethernet into ALOHANET and the idea of CSMA/CD. Sooner or later, there needs to be the spectrum of collision detection & retry, collision avoidance through time slotting and token passing, etc.
- For most of what I discuss here, 802.3 is more correct, but, even there, I quickly have to examine 802.2, and possibly 802.1q. Did you look at locality of networks, which addresses some of the problematic terminology? Howard C. Berkowitz 13:44, 23 August 2008 (CDT)