[125078] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Hubs on a NIC (was:Re: what about 48 bits?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roland Perry)
Thu Apr 8 17:22:29 2010
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:20:08 +0100
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Roland Perry <lists@internetpolicyagency.com>
In-Reply-To: <DAA7E8AD-EFFF-4076-85DB-1CDC19AFA483@cs.columbia.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In article <DAA7E8AD-EFFF-4076-85DB-1CDC19AFA483@cs.columbia.edu>,
Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> writes
>> Remember, it was this strange time when people were uncertain about how
>> networks were going to evolve, and what the next thing would be, and
>> even then, 10baseT was being deployed over Cat3 (sometimes recycled/
>> repurposed), so any sort of "enabling" gadget such as these cards had a
>> tendency to be abused in various ways.
>
>Right -- the wire and pin assignments for 10BaseT and 100BaseT were
>designed to permit sharing the cable between Ethernet and phone.
I wired a new-build house (of mine) like that in 1995. The CAT5 cable
was expensive enough that it made sense to share. And it worked. The
bigger challenge was getting Internet to the house, not round the house.
Ten years later, both voice and data would probably have been better
done by wireless (DECT and wifi respectively).
--
Roland Perry
