[124783] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: what about 48 bits?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Burwell)
Sun Apr 4 23:08:44 2010
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:08:02 -0700
From: Jim Burwell <jimb@jsbc.cc>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20100405114637.30031fc4@opy.nosense.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 4/4/2010 19:16, Mark Smith wrote:
<-snip->
> Actually the IEEE have never called it "Ethernet", it's all been IEEE
> 802.3 / XXX{BASE|BROAD}-BLAH.
>
> "Ethernet", assuming version 1 and 2, strictly means thick coax, vampir=
e
> taps and AUI connectors running at (half-duplex) 10Mbps. I saw some of
> it once.
> =20
I worked with it at my first job at a large government institution.=20
Talk about painful and unweildy. We had parts of our network wired with
10base5 (thick ethernet) with vampire taps, and had some segments wired
with transceivers which had a pair of threaded "type N connectors" (not
sure if this is the proper name ... it's what my boss called them ...
looked like oversized CATV F connectors). The xceiver boxes were
pretty big (4-5 inches wide) and connected to the node via an AUI drop
cable.
The N connectors were easier to deal with than the vampire taps. To add
a node, you just "spliced" a new xceiver box onto the line where you
needed it by screwing a new length of cable into the new + existng
xceivers, then connecting the AUI drop cable from the box to the node.
Eventually we went to 10base2 (thin ethernet) and then like everyone
else, 10baseT hubs.=20
