[15084] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FDDI or 100Mb Ethernet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dorn Hetzel)
Fri Feb 6 17:25:20 1998
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:09:05 -0500
From: Dorn Hetzel <dorn@atl.eni.net>
To: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
Cc: Deepak Jain <deepak@jain.com>, Lewis Eatherton <eathertl@segasoft.com>,
Charles Sprickman <spork@inch.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <v03007802b10127df3e76@[198.3.136.121]>; from Dean Anderson on Fri, Feb 06, 1998 at 04:17:53PM -0500
I have started to look at "Fast Ethernet" and see "Full-Duplex
Switched Fast Ethernet". I mean, the switch ports are SO cheap,
why do anything less...
On Fri, Feb 06, 1998 at 04:17:53PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> At 2:35 PM -0500 2/6/98, Deepak Jain wrote:
> >FDDI can run full duplex, as for the other two things its a matter of
> >opinion & conditions. (One I agree with, but still opinion).
>
> For desktops, I agree completely that fast ethernet is the way to go. Fast
> ether hubs are cheaper and easier to wire than cddi hubs (no cross over
> cables required).
>
> For a backbone, though, I would point out that FDDI is a token ring
> protocol, so performance is always predictable. Ethernet, and fast ethernet
> have performance knees. (Actually, I'm assuming Fast Ethernet will have a
> knee at around 70% utilization. I haven't tested that it really does).
> Also, both Fiber and Copper can be implemented with dual attached rings
> which might be an advantage for a backbone link.
>
> --Dean
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com
> LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
