Archived from groups: comp.dcom.sys.nortel,comp.dcom.sys.bay-networks,comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (
More info?)
In article <Forum.1090772269.21098.ptichy@paul933>, ptichy@sbcglobal.net
says...
Top-posting corrected. Please don't top-post. This is why.
http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/?toppost
> ------------------------
> From: "Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" <SpammersArePondScum@dev.null>
> Subject: Re: Help! Looking for Docs for SynOptics LattisHub 2803
> Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 07:54:23 -0700
> Location: news://news.houston.sbcglobal.net/comp.dcom.sys.bay-networks/MPG.1b6d697d9bdd469598976c@192.168.42.131
> To: "comp.dcom.sys.nortel" <@news:comp.dcom.sys.nortel@news.houston.sbcglobal.net>, "comp.dcom.sys.bay-networks" <@news:comp.dcom.sys.bay-networks@news.houston.sbcglobal.net>, "comp.dcom.lans.ethernet" <@news:comp.dcom.lans.ethernet@news.houston.sbcglobal.net>
>
>
> In article <0001HW.BD2811080005A9B104B5EC60@news-60.giganews.com>,
> nelson@nowhere.com says...
>
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:55:55 -0400, Paul Tichy wrote
> > (in article <Forum.1090547751.28260.ptichy@paul933>):
> >
> > > The 2803, by itself, is a dumb unmanaged Ethernet repeater
> > > and no documentation will shed any light on feature/function.
> > >
> > > It was the optional second unit that could expand a 2813 hub.
> > > The 2813 documentation is on the Nortel site as follows
> > >
> > > www.nortelnetworks.com -> Support -> Manufacture Discontinued
> > > -> System 2000 Ethernet Hubs: Documentation
> >
> > Thanks, Paul. I guess I was looking in the wrong place, ie under the
> > "Bay Networks" brand. I have D/L the S2000 docs and will take a look
> > at them. It is curious that the box has a DB-9 port labeled "Terminal
> > Port" if it is indeed so dumb
>
> Speaking from personal experience (as in I used to use one): The
> 2813 isn't completely 'dumb,' though it's no switch. The menus
> accessible through the console port give one the ability to partition
> ports, check statistics, etc. You can also give the hub its own IP
> address, as I recall (though what purpose this might serve, other than
> for, maybe, SNMP management, I have no idea).
>
> Happy hunting.
> We weren't talking about the intelligent 2813/14, but rather
> the unmanaged 2803/4.
That's as may be. However, my contention is that if something has
a console port built in it was meant to be used for such.
I will add this much: What has the original poster got to lose
simply by hooking up a terminal, or a PC running a terminal emulator,
and futzing with the interface? ;-)
Keep the peace(es).
--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"