«

Matt wrote:

> Could this be caused by not having an uplink cable?
>
> Is one really necessary? it seems to work ok with just a straight cable.

My DSE ADSL router has a crossover cable. I simply inserted it into a
normal port on the 100m switch. I did not use the Uplink port as that is
a crossover port and would - effectiviely - give me a double crossover.

This allows you to use your uplink port on the router...and also plug
into your switch. I also have another 110m switch uplinked to the first
switch....and a wireless access point also connected to the first switch.

The only thing directly connected to my ADSL router is the first switch
- via the router's corssover cable to the normal port on the first
switch (just to repeat it for clarity).

I now use DHCP on the DSL router for all systems other than my
mail/file/print/web servers.

In article <>,
steve <> wrote:

>My DSE ADSL router has a crossover cable. I simply inserted it into a
>normal port on the 100m switch. I did not use the Uplink port as that is
>a crossover port and would - effectiviely - give me a double crossover.

Crossover cables can be very confusing. Rather than keeping one of
those, I found a little crossover adapter extension gadget (only a few
dollars from Dick Smith) that turns any straight-through cable into a
crossover (or crossover into a straight-through, if you must).

In properly-designed data communications interfaces, all ports would
have identical pinouts, and all cables would be crossover cables. That
way you could plug anything into anything, and not have to worry about
different cable types. This is how both SCSI and FireWire work.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:54:42 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<_zealand> wrote:

>In article <>,
> steve <> wrote:
>
>>My DSE ADSL router has a crossover cable. I simply inserted it into a
>>normal port on the 100m switch. I did not use the Uplink port as that is
>>a crossover port and would - effectiviely - give me a double crossover.
>
>Crossover cables can be very confusing. Rather than keeping one of
>those, I found a little crossover adapter extension gadget (only a few
>dollars from Dick Smith) that turns any straight-through cable into a
>crossover (or crossover into a straight-through, if you must).
>
>In properly-designed data communications interfaces, all ports would
>have identical pinouts, and all cables would be crossover cables. That
>way you could plug anything into anything, and not have to worry about
>different cable types. This is how both SCSI and FireWire work.

My ADSL hub is like that - auto configires so as long as the adapter
fits the hole, it will work.
Geoff
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:54:42 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In properly-designed data communications interfaces, all ports would
> have identical pinouts, and all cables would be crossover cables.

Most switches above the extreme bottom end are autosensing now. Crossover
cables are rapidly becoming a thing as irrelevant as
acoustic-coupler modems.

In article < et.nz>,
Uncle StoatWarbler <alanb+> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:54:42 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In properly-designed data communications interfaces, all ports would
>> have identical pinouts, and all cables would be crossover cables.
>
>Most switches above the extreme bottom end are autosensing now. Crossover
>cables are rapidly becoming a thing as irrelevant as
>acoustic-coupler modems.

Yes, but that's a development after the fact. If you were designing a
protocol from the start, you wouldn't put in that kind of auto-sensing
as a requirement. Which is why FireWire, for example, doesn't need such
a requirement.

Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
> In article < et.nz>,
> Uncle StoatWarbler <alanb+> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:54:42 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >
> >> In properly-designed data communications interfaces, all ports would
> >> have identical pinouts, and all cables would be crossover cables.
> >
> >Most switches above the extreme bottom end are autosensing now. Crossover
> >cables are rapidly becoming a thing as irrelevant as
> >acoustic-coupler modems.
>
> Yes, but that's a development after the fact. If you were designing a
> protocol from the start, you wouldn't put in that kind of auto-sensing
> as a requirement. Which is why FireWire, for example, doesn't need such
> a requirement.

Bet firewire doesn't use polarised signals, they are used in networking
for noise cancellation. Can you put Firewire over the same length as a
network?

In article < >,
Patrick Dunford <> wrote:

>Lawrence D1Oliveiro
>> In article < et.nz>,
>> Uncle StoatWarbler <alanb+> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:54:42 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> >
>> >> In properly-designed data communications interfaces, all ports would
>> >> have identical pinouts, and all cables would be crossover cables.
>> >
>> >Most switches above the extreme bottom end are autosensing now. Crossover
>> >cables are rapidly becoming a thing as irrelevant as
>> >acoustic-coupler modems.
>>
>> Yes, but that's a development after the fact. If you were designing a
>> protocol from the start, you wouldn't put in that kind of auto-sensing
>> as a requirement. Which is why FireWire, for example, doesn't need such
>> a requirement.
>
>Bet firewire doesn't use polarised signals, they are used in networking
>for noise cancellation.

I don't understand what you mean. If you mean does it use differential
signalling over balanced lines for common-mode noise rejection, yes it
does.

>Can you put Firewire over the same length as a
>network?

Yes, I think the length restrictions are similar to those for 100BaseTX
cabling. And not only that, you can run TCP/IP over FireWire as well.

"Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
news:ldo-...
> In article < >,
> Patrick Dunford <> wrote:
> >Can you put Firewire over the same length as a
> >network?
>
> Yes, I think the length restrictions are similar to those for 100BaseTX
> cabling. And not only that, you can run TCP/IP over FireWire as well.


The maximum cable length spec for firewire is 4.5 metres

In article <tZlkc.457$>,
"brundlefly" <> wrote:

>"Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
>news:ldo-...
>> In article < >,
>> Patrick Dunford <> wrote:
>> >Can you put Firewire over the same length as a
>> >network?
>>
>> Yes, I think the length restrictions are similar to those for 100BaseTX
>> cabling. And not only that, you can run TCP/IP over FireWire as well.
>
>The maximum cable length spec for firewire is 4.5 metres

OK, 1000BaseT then. FireWire is faster than 100BaseTX anyway...

"Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
news:ldo-...
> In article <tZlkc.457$>,
> "brundlefly" <> wrote:
>
> >"Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
> >news:ldo-...
> >> In article < >,
> >> Patrick Dunford <> wrote:
> >> >Can you put Firewire over the same length as a
> >> >network?
> >>
> >> Yes, I think the length restrictions are similar to those for 100BaseTX
> >> cabling. And not only that, you can run TCP/IP over FireWire as well.
> >
> >The maximum cable length spec for firewire is 4.5 metres
>
> OK, 1000BaseT then. FireWire is faster than 100BaseTX anyway...

1000BaseT maximum cable length spec is 100 metres