And, like many Allied Telesyn/Telesis products, NO POWER BRICK! An
auto-switching supply is built right into the hub.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 2:45 PM Cameron Kaiser via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > Speaking of AUI and hubs etc., any interest in a 10baseT hub with an
> Speaking of AUI and hubs etc., any interest in a 10baseT hub with an AUI port?
> Allied Telesyn/CentreCom MR820T
I have (two of) the MR820TR, which has all of the above plus 10b2. Great
device, incredibly reliable, running non-stop for years.
--
personal: h
riday, August 31, 2018 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: Thicknet/10base5 Test Segment: The Cable is In!
> Yeah, Allied Telesyn/Telesis made (and still makes!) really decent hardware
> at a midrange price. I often recommend their gigabit and PoE switches for
> cost-sensitive projects, especial
Yeah, Allied Telesyn/Telesis made (and still makes!) really decent hardware
at a midrange price. I often recommend their gigabit and PoE switches for
cost-sensitive projects, especially where management isn't really needed.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 5:56 PM Cameron Kaiser via cctal
> Allied Telesis made a "multi port tap" that provided four AUI ports off a
> single Ethernet tap. I don't know if it was a repeater/hub inside, or what.
> It was much smaller than a DELNI or DEREP.
Pretty sure I know the device you're talking about and I think it was
a hub internally. I liked it
> On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:32 PM, systems_glitch wrote:
>
> Allied Telesis made a "multi port tap" that provided four AUI ports off a
> single Ethernet tap. I don't know if it was a repeater/hub inside, or what.
> It was much smaller than a DELNI or DEREP.
That's not surprising. The DEC boxes
Allied Telesis made a "multi port tap" that provided four AUI ports off a
single Ethernet tap. I don't know if it was a repeater/hub inside, or what.
It was much smaller than a DELNI or DEREP.
That totally sounds like the one located in the Cray. My guess is most
people would hook AUI transceiv
I think I've seen reports of multi AUI port taps. Correct?
I think my Cray has a 4 port AUI box w/ 1 x 10base2. It has DB15 ribbons
going to each of the IOSV CPU cards. Allied Telesyn might be the mfgr.
--
: Ethan O'Toole
Allied Telesis made a "multi port tap" that provided four AUI ports off a
single Ethernet tap. I don't know if it was a repeater/hub inside, or what.
It was much smaller than a DELNI or DEREP.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:33 PM Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 08/31/2018 01:07 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:
>> Yeah, I forget what the original allowed length was for drop cables, but I
>> seem to remember it striking me as quite long! A few feet of CAT5 (or even
>> better,
On 08/31/2018 01:07 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:
Yeah, I forget what the original allowed length was for drop cables,
but I seem to remember it striking me as quite long! A few feet of CAT5
(or even better, STP) has a lot of wiggle room :P
I think I've seen reports of multi AUI port ta
> On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:07 PM, systems_glitch wrote:
>
> Yeah, I forget what the original allowed length was for drop cables, but I
> seem to remember it striking me as quite long! A few feet of CAT5 (or even
> better, STP) has a lot of wiggle room :P
50 meters, says IEEE 802.3.
pa
Yeah, I forget what the original allowed length was for drop cables, but I
seem to remember it striking me as quite long! A few feet of CAT5 (or even
better, STP) has a lot of wiggle room :P
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:08 PM Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 2:45 PM,
> On Aug 31, 2018, at 2:45 PM, systems_glitch wrote:
>
> Yeah, you can make up your own AUI cables with less-than-spec wire and get
> away with it no problem, but I was referring to NOS premade AUI cables being
> a limited resource.
>
> I've made them with DA15s and CAT5 cable before, and i
Yeah, you can make up your own AUI cables with less-than-spec wire and get
away with it no problem, but I was referring to NOS premade AUI cables
being a limited resource.
I've made them with DA15s and CAT5 cable before, and it works for short
runs.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 1:21
I understand 10Base5 cable being limited, though regular 50 ohm coax generally
works fine if you work around the lack of stripes.
AUI cable, though, that doesn't seem much of a problem. Straightforward N pair
twisted pair cable, terminated with DA15 connectors. The slide locks are not
quite c
Honestly? I'm worried about someone reading the list archive and hoarding
them all away. It's a limited resource.
I'll send you the link off-list.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 11:18 AM Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On 08/31/2018 08:04 AM, systems_glitch w
On 08/31/2018 08:04 AM, systems_glitch wrote:
Excellent, glad it made it there quickly and safely!
Me too.
If anyone needs AUI cables, I don't have a bunch on hand, but I can pass
on the seller I buy them from -- 1m cable, $20 shipped in the US.
Is there any reason not to go ahead and share
Excellent, glad it made it there quickly and safely! If anyone needs AUI
cables, I don't have a bunch on hand, but I can pass on the seller I buy
them from -- 1m cable, $20 shipped in the US.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 1:14 AM Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 06/25/2018 03:20 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:
Anyone interested in cable can email me directly (please change the
subject line, it'll get binned into my cctalk folder otherwise). I can
provide any level of "kit" from just the cable to fully ready to go. I
do have a very few NOS Cable
From: Chuck Guzis
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 3:43 PM
> On 06/29/2018 02:30 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
>> When we wired up two different locations for terminals at Software
>> Results Corp in the 80s, the furthest runs were 250' or so. 9600
>> baud, from VT100s back to Emulex and DEC seri
tor 2018-06-28 klockan 20:37 +0200 skrev Liam Proven via cctalk:
>
>
> Sounds very sensible, but the Isle of Man isn't part of the USA, nor
> even part of the UK. It's its own little country and this was the
> late
> 1980s. I suspect the Manx Electrical Code or equivalent had no
> mention
> of da
> On Jun 29, 2018, at 1:01 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> If anyone's wondering, here's a 1975 Bell System treatise on grounding
> and protection. Note that carbon-block protection was standard practice:
>
> http://bellsystempractices.org/500-/518-/518-010-105-i02_1975-09-01.pdf
>
On 2018-Jun-29, at 1:27 AM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote:
>
> A telephony connection is the most plausable theory I have come across yet.
> I can remember devices that looked like large junction boxes with a ground
> connection that were installed where an overhead telephone line entered a
> bui
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:43 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk
wrote:
> On 06/29/2018 02:30 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
>
> > When we wired up two different locations for terminals at Software
> > Results Corp in the 80s, the furthest runs were 250' or so. 9600
> > baud, from VT100s back to Emulex a
On 06/29/2018 02:30 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
> When we wired up two different locations for terminals at Software
> Results Corp in the 80s, the furthest runs were 250' or so. 9600
> baud, from VT100s back to Emulex and DEC serial muxes. The long runs
> were 25-pair telephone cable (CAT
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Pete Turnbull via cctalk
wrote:
> On 29/06/2018 14:31, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> Yes, and the specified distance limit for RS232 is quite short, 50
>> feet or so.
>>
>> People have used RS232 over longer distances, of course, and gotten
>> away with it.
>
>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
> On 06/28/2018 12:22 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
>
>> What amazed me is that none of the NICs blew, none of the machines failed
>> or died. Once the cabling was sorted, it was OK. Who knew that BNC Ethernet
>> ports could handle
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> People have used RS232 over longer distances, of course, and gotten away
> with it.
>
And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for those
meddling ground potential differences!
On 29/06/2018 14:31, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Yes, and the specified distance limit for RS232 is quite short, 50
feet or so.
People have used RS232 over longer distances, of course, and gotten
away with it.
The RS-232-C standard doesn't actually specify a maximum distance.
Section 3.1
If anyone's wondering, here's a 1975 Bell System treatise on grounding
and protection. Note that carbon-block protection was standard practice:
http://bellsystempractices.org/500-/518-/518-010-105-i02_1975-09-01.pdf
Note also, that the standard practice dictated that grounding at the
dmarc shou
> On Jun 29, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Tony Duell via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk
> wrote:
>> On 2018-06-28 at 17:05:32 -0700, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The original standard is very old--it dates form 1960--a very different
>>> time
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk
wrote:
> On 2018-06-28 at 17:05:32 -0700, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>
>>
>> The original standard is very old--it dates form 1960--a very different
>> time; DCE was strictly under the control of the telcos, and I suspect
>> that connect
On 2018-06-28 at 17:05:32 -0700, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>
> The original standard is very old--it dates form 1960--a very different
> time; DCE was strictly under the control of the telcos, and I suspect
> that connection to DTE had to be approved by them. In that sense, pin 1
> serving as
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 at 04:39, Jon Elson wrote:
> They are galvanically isolated, good for several thousand Volts.
> The transceiver is powered by a tiny transformer, and the
> signals are passed through several more.
Fascinating. I did not know that. Thanks for the info!
--
Liam Proven - Profi
On 06/28/2018 12:22 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
What amazed me is that none of the NICs blew, none of the
machines failed or died. Once the cabling was sorted, it
was OK. Who knew that BNC Ethernet ports could handle 100V
or more flowing through them and mostly work?
They are galvanical
> From: Eric Smith
> If you _must_ run a long -232 cable
'Don't!' That's what -422 is for. :-)
Noel
On 06/28/2018 01:42 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
> mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote:
>
> So, on a TIA/EIA/RS-232C DB-25 connector, what's the official position
> on pin 1? The standards calls it PGND = Protective ground and most
>
On 2018-06-28 at 13:20:25 -07:00, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>
> So, on a TIA/EIA/RS-232C DB-25 connector, what's the official position
> on pin 1? The standards calls it PGND = Protective ground and most
> reference seem to indicate that this is chassis/earth ground at both
> ends of a cable.
On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 at 21:14, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
wrote:
>
> I realize that, just pointing out that the threat was already well known
> by the 1980's.
Ah, ISWYM now. Sorry. Yes, in that case, you're absolutely right.
--
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@ci
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> So, on a TIA/EIA/RS-232C DB-25 connector, what's the official position
> on pin 1? The standards calls it PGND = Protective ground and most
> reference seem to indicate that this is chassis/earth ground at b
On 06/28/2018 09:45 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:
> Of course, this isn't specific to Ethernet. It can happen with e.g.
> TIA/EIA-232 (formerly RS-232) as well, and in fact that is even more common
> in practice, because Ethernet is transformer-isolated at each station, but
> TIA/EIA-232 is usu
On 06/28/2018 02:37 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 at 20:13, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
> wrote:
>
>> The US Electrical Code has not allowed any kind of signal wire in
>> the same conduit with any kind of power wiring for as far back as
>> I can remember.
> Sounds very sensible, bu
On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 at 20:13, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
wrote:
>
> The US Electrical Code has not allowed any kind of signal wire in
> the same conduit with any kind of power wiring for as far back as
> I can remember.
Sounds very sensible, but the Isle of Man isn't part of the USA, nor
even pa
On 06/28/2018 01:22 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 at 18:45, Eric Smith via cctalk
> wrote:
>> In case it may not be obvious to some readers, the reason you should NEVER
>> ground an Ethernet cable (of any kind) at two points is that the ground
>> potential at two differ
On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 at 18:45, Eric Smith via cctalk
wrote:
>
> In case it may not be obvious to some readers, the reason you should NEVER
> ground an Ethernet cable (of any kind) at two points is that the ground
> potential at two different points is unlikely to be the same, so that will
> cause a
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:18 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 2018, at 4:52 AM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > On a slightly different point, didn't the thickwire spec call for the
> outer
> > conductor of the cable to be ear
Thanks for the clarifications, Paul!
Indeed, some thinnet devices do have terminators built in. On a fair bit of
Allied Telesyn gear, there's a switch for it.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 2018, at 4:5
> On Jun 28, 2018, at 4:52 AM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 2018-06-27 19:34:38 -07:00, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>> On 06/27/2018 04:19 PM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk wrote:
>>
>>> No idea. But on thickwire the taps were all supposed to be made at
>>> specifically marked pos
Thinnet is supposed to be grounded at one point, and only one point, as
well. Supposedly that's what the chain on some terminators is for. Some
hubs have a grounding and termination option built in. I don't know offhand
if this was specced in the standard or not. Of course, this often wasn't
follow
On 2018-06-27 19:34:38 -07:00, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> On 06/27/2018 04:19 PM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk wrote:
>
> > No idea. But on thickwire the taps were all supposed to be made at
> > specifically marked positions (for the reason given earlier).
> > Perhaps someone (incorrectly) thoug
On 06/27/2018 04:19 PM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk wrote:
> No idea. But on thickwire the taps were all supposed to be made at
> specifically marked positions (for the reason given earlier).
> Perhaps someone (incorrectly) thought that the terminator should also be
> at such a position and so a te
On 27/06/18 02:56, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
So where did the "leave extra line before the terminator" came from?
No idea. But on thickwire the taps were all supposed to be made at
specifically marked positions (for the reason given earlier).
Perhaps someone (incorrectly) thought that t
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Paul Koning
wrote:
> This reminds me of a research project done at DEC that at one point was
> discussed as a possible product but didn't happen: an Ethernet segment
> mapping device. It was called "packet voltmeter". The idea was that you'd
> have one at each
> On Jun 27, 2018, at 1:45 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk
> > wrote:
> > Collision detection was the reason (or at least _a_ reason) why the spacing
> > of taps on the 10BASE-5 "thick" Et
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Paul Koning
wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > Collision detection was the reason (or at least _a_ reason) why the
> spacing
> > of taps on the 10BASE-5 "thick" Ethernet cable was required to be an
> On Jun 27, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> Collision detection was the reason (or at least _a_ reason) why the spacing
> of taps on the 10BASE-5 "thick" Ethernet cable was required to be an exact
> multiple of 2.5m. It was never clear to me why this was not also a
> re
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> On 06/26/2018 06:20 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:
>
>> On 06/26/2018 03:15 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
>>
>>> I can only guess that having a terminator too close interferes with or
weakens the signal too much in some way.
>>>
> On Jun 26, 2018, at 10:13 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 06/26/2018 06:20 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:
>> On 06/26/2018 03:15 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
I can only guess that having a terminator too close interferes with or
weakens the signal too much in some
On 2018-06-26 08:02 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> There clearly is confusion about what terminators are and how they work.
> It's all perfectly straightforward elementary classic E & M, and any halfway
> decent RF theory textbook will make things clear. Even a source as
> elementary as t
> the AMP coring tool ... doesn't screw in though ... I don't know if this
> is consistent with the original 3 mbit Ethernet, as I've never worked
> with that.
I was speaking of the gear used on the 3 Mbit. I don't recall the 10 Mbit
stuff at all I have this vague memory that the 3
What an amazing conversation.
Where else would anyone go to get such an animated and in depth discussion on
the finest details of the theory and practice of installing thickwire ethernet!
Are we geeks or what :-)
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
On 06/26/2018 06:02 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
There clearly is confusion about what terminators are and how they work.
It's all perfectly straightforward elementary classic E & M, and any
halfway decent RF theory textbook will make things clear. Even a source
as elementary as the ARRL
On 06/26/2018 06:20 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:
On 06/26/2018 03:15 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
I can only guess that having a terminator too close interferes with or
weakens the signal too much in some way.
No, I think it may have something to do with properly
detecting all colli
On 06/26/2018 05:02 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> There clearly is confusion about what terminators are and how they
> work. It's all perfectly straightforward elementary classic E & M,
> and any halfway decent RF theory textbook will make things clear.
> Even a source as elementary as the
So then we're in agreement that screwing the N terminator directly to an
intrusive tap shouldn't make a difference? No need for a jumper off the end
of the tap for the terminator to live on?
As a high school CCNA hopeful, I accepted this as, "it's what you do," and
I hadn't really given it any tho
> On Jun 26, 2018, at 7:20 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>> On 06/26/2018 03:15 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
>>
>>> I can only guess that having a terminator too close interferes with
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On 06/26/2018 03:15 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
>
> > I can only guess that having a terminator too close interferes with or
> > weakens the signal too much in some way.
>
> Exactly what would the effe
On 06/26/2018 03:15 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
> I can only guess that having a terminator too close interferes with or
> weakens the signal too much in some way.
Exactly what would the effect be? I recall putting terminators on
10base2 coax just hanging off one leg of a BNC tee. Really
On 06/26/2018 01:07 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:
I seem to recall the CCNA instructor telling us that you weren't really
supposed to screw a 50 ohm terminator onto an intrusive tap; I don't know
if there's good reason for it or if it was just a general practice.
I'm taking that to mean
On 06/26/2018 01:19 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> On 06/26/2018 10:04 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
>
>> My assumption was that "tap" comes from the second form. I always
>> thought there was a different name for the first form. But I believe
>> they were less common, hence fall unde
On 06/26/2018 01:13 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>
>> On Jun 26, 2018, at 1:04 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/26/2018 10:31 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:
>>> What does non-intrusive mean in this context? I thought that thick ethernet
>>> taps always required drill
> On Jun 26, 2018, at 3:23 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:07 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk
> wrote:
>> ...
>
>> I seem to recall the CCNA instructor telling us that you weren't really
>> supposed to screw a 50 ohm terminator onto an intrusive tap; I don't
(re-send due to not reply-all'ing as required)
Sorry, I think that came across wrong due to my wording -- we were told it
wasn't general practice to screw the terminator directly to the intrusive
tap, as you would with a BNC tee on thinnet. We were told to use a jumper
to extend somewhat past the
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:07 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk
wrote:
> I've confirmed that I now have N connector intrusive taps! These have a N
> female connector on each end, like the leftmost transceiver in this picture:
>
> https://oelzant.priv.at/~aoe/images/galleries/hardware/802_3_transceivers
> On Jun 26, 2018, at 3:07 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> I've confirmed that I now have N connector intrusive taps! These have a N
> female connector on each end, like the leftmost transceiver in this picture:
>
> https://oelzant.priv.at/~aoe/images/galleries/hardware/802_3_tran
I've confirmed that I now have N connector intrusive taps! These have a N
female connector on each end, like the leftmost transceiver in this picture:
https://oelzant.priv.at/~aoe/images/galleries/hardware/802_3_transceivers/DSC_0927_med.jpg
I seem to recall the CCNA instructor telling us that yo
Indeed, the AMP coring tool is more a cutter than a drill, and it doesn't
go all the way to the center conductor, which would short out the segment
as the cutter is metallic. It doesn't screw in though, it has a shoulder
that stops on the seating surface of the vampire tap body. I don't know if
thi
> From: Paul Koning
> I believe the original concept was just a probe that would poke through
> the cable to contact the center connector. The drill came because the
> cable was too tough to penetrate without it.
No, the original 3 Mbit Ethernet also used a 'drill' (actually, a c
The intrusive part does indeed refer to the "intrusive to continued
service" aspect (e.g. cutting the line, crimping new ends...or at best
unscrewing the N connectors and removing a coupler fitting). I'm not sure
about the lesser insertion loss/impedance bump of vampire taps vs. N
connectors, but t
> On Jun 26, 2018, at 1:19 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 06/26/2018 10:04 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
>
>> My assumption was that "tap" comes from the second form. I always
>> thought there was a different name for the first form. But I believe
>> they were less common,
On 06/26/2018 10:04 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
> My assumption was that "tap" comes from the second form. I always
> thought there was a different name for the first form. But I believe
> they were less common, hence fall under the "tap" term which is more
> popular.
My impression from
> On Jun 26, 2018, at 1:04 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 06/26/2018 10:31 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:
>> What does non-intrusive mean in this context? I thought that thick ethernet
>> taps always required drilling a hole in the cable.
>
> There are taps that screw onto
On 06/26/2018 10:31 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:
What does non-intrusive mean in this context? I thought that thick
ethernet taps always required drilling a hole in the cable.
There are taps that screw onto the N connectors. Thus you have to
intrusively disconnect segments, to insert t
> On Jun 25, 2018, at 2:20 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk
> wrote:
> I do have a very
> few NOS Cabletron ST-500-01 transceiver/non-intrusive tap kits as well.
What does non-intrusive mean in this context? I thought that thick ethernet
taps always required drilling a hole in the cable.
--
On 06/25/2018 04:20 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:
All,
A few months ago, I mentioned one of my suppliers had Belden 89880 thicknet
Ethernet cable. Well, last week I finally made it down to his warehouse and
picked it up! The final bits for a test segment came in today, so I set up
a littl
All,
A few months ago, I mentioned one of my suppliers had Belden 89880 thicknet
Ethernet cable. Well, last week I finally made it down to his warehouse and
picked it up! The final bits for a test segment came in today, so I set up
a little link between my SPARCstation 10 and DEChub 90:
https://i
87 matches
Mail list logo
