Re: ADSL Router & LAN Query

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by steve, Apr 23, 2004.

  1. steve

    steve Guest

    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.
     
    steve, Apr 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. steve

    geoffm Guest

    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
     
    geoffm, Apr 24, 2004
    #3
  4. 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.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Apr 24, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <>,
    Uncle StoatWarbler <> 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, Apr 28, 2004
    #5
  6. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    > In article <>,
    > Uncle StoatWarbler <> 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?
     
    Patrick Dunford, Apr 28, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    Patrick Dunford <> wrote:

    >Lawrence D1Oliveiro
    >> In article <>,
    >> Uncle StoatWarbler <> 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, Apr 30, 2004
    #7
  8. steve

    brundlefly Guest

    "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    brundlefly, Apr 30, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <tZlkc.457$>,
    "brundlefly" <> wrote:

    >"Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> 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, Apr 30, 2004
    #9
  10. steve

    brundlefly Guest

    "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <tZlkc.457$>,
    > "brundlefly" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> 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
     
    brundlefly, Apr 30, 2004
    #10
  11. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    > In article <tZlkc.457$>,
    > "brundlefly" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> 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...


    Rubbish, 1000BaseTX leg length is 100 metres, the same as 100BaseTX and
    10BaseT.
     
    Patrick Dunford, May 1, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. blaj

    lan-to-lan vpn over adsl

    blaj, Nov 19, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    835
  2. SiD

    NETGEAR DG834 ADSL ROUTER QUERY

    SiD, Sep 26, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    599
  3. Matt
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,066
  4. LincolnShep
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,889
    Jack \(MVP-Networking\).
    Nov 8, 2006
  5. czar

    adsl router to adsl router

    czar, May 1, 2007, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    474
    Doug McIntyre
    May 1, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page