gigabit pricing

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Fry's ad today has a gigabit NIC for $7.99, and five port
switch for $19.99, no rebate required.

The brand is Airlink, which I don't know anything about,
but that should give some idea where gigabit pricing
is going.

-- glen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> Fry's ad today has a gigabit NIC for $7.99, and five port
> switch for $19.99, no rebate required.
>
> The brand is Airlink, which I don't know anything about,
> but that should give some idea where gigabit pricing
> is going.

Gigabit is too slow. Go for 10 Gb. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> Fry's ad today has a gigabit NIC for $7.99, and five port
> switch for $19.99, no rebate required.
>
> The brand is Airlink, which I don't know anything about,
> but that should give some idea where gigabit pricing
> is going.

Yep. I said a couple of years ago that by this year or next it would be
pushing 100TX off the shelves. Looks like it's starting.

> -- glen

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <vC_sd.453247$wV.282616@attbi_s54>,
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
:Fry's ad today has a gigabit NIC for $7.99, and five port
:switch for $19.99, no rebate required.

:The brand is Airlink, which I don't know anything about,
:but that should give some idea where gigabit pricing
:is going.

I wonder if the NIC is one of those ones that pushes nearly
all the processing over to the CPU, like the old WinModems used to do?

5 ports on the switch is a bit odd, in that most gigabit chipsets
handle either 1, 2, or 4 ports, and it would be the 4 port sets that
would be least expensive. [See tomsnetworking.com from about March 2004
for some details on the chip wiring choices.]


But Yes, pricing is headed way down.

And in a way, that has me, in my role as a network administrator, quite
concerned. With the prices of low-end unmanaged unconfigurable gigabit
switches already having fallen to about the same price as low-end
unmanaged unconfigurable 10/100 consumer-class switches, it is going to
be very difficult for me to keep low-quality switches off of my
network.

If one of our researchers needs a few gigabit ports for some project,
it is going to be pretty much impossible for me to say, "No, you have
to spend at least $C 5000 on a switch because I instinctively don't
trust those off-brands" when the researcher can see "gigabit switches"
advertised for less than $C 100, and when $C 5000 is enough to pay a
PostDoc for a few months of work.

I had better have pretty strong arguments when the price difference is
more than 50:1... especially when it's going to have to be me [whom the
researchers don't have to pay out of their grants] that has to track
down the problems rather than one of their people. You can predict the
argument: "So you're telling me that whatever problems might -maybe-
show up with this inexpensive switch, are going to take you two
person-months worth of your labour to track down??" And of course the
answer to that is "No". Now, if a cheap switch were to completely trash
the LAN for a couple of hours then the work lost over all the employees
would mount quickly, but complete trashing is rather unlikely: the
most probable scenario is me ending up having to spend long
unproductive hours to isolate some subtle problem, at perhaps
a week's actual salary. The cost of mental aggrevation to me is
not factored in. Yeah, like I need a plateload of frustrating network
difficulties 'cuz I just don't have enough work to do
--
Tenser, said the Tensor.
Tenser, said the Tensor.
Tension, apprehension,
And dissension have begun. -- Alfred Bester (tDM)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Walter Roberson wrote:

> I wonder if the NIC is one of those ones that pushes nearly
> all the processing over to the CPU, like the old WinModems used to do?

Geezz. That's all we need WinNICs. ;-)

>
> 5 ports on the switch is a bit odd, in that most gigabit chipsets
> handle either 1, 2, or 4 ports, and it would be the 4 port sets that
> would be least expensive. [See tomsnetworking.com from about March 2004
> for some details on the chip wiring choices.]
>

Gigabit switches no longer have "uplink" ports, as all ports are now the
same. So where older switches would often have 4 regular ports and 1
uplink, they're all available for regular connections now.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Walter Roberson wrote:

> In article <vC_sd.453247$wV.282616@attbi_s54>,
> glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> :Fry's ad today has a gigabit NIC for $7.99, and five port
> :switch for $19.99, no rebate required.
>
> :The brand is Airlink, which I don't know anything about,
> :but that should give some idea where gigabit pricing
> :is going.
>
> I wonder if the NIC is one of those ones that pushes nearly
> all the processing over to the CPU, like the old WinModems used to do?

Now, who is making a Gigabit chipset that works that way?

> 5 ports on the switch is a bit odd, in that most gigabit chipsets
> handle either 1, 2, or 4 ports, and it would be the 4 port sets that
> would be least expensive. [See tomsnetworking.com from about March 2004
> for some details on the chip wiring choices.]

With all due regard to tomsnetworking.com, there are several brands of
inexpensive 5 port gigabit switch--if he says otherwise he's missed
something.

> But Yes, pricing is headed way down.
>
> And in a way, that has me, in my role as a network administrator, quite
> concerned. With the prices of low-end unmanaged unconfigurable gigabit
> switches already having fallen to about the same price as low-end
> unmanaged unconfigurable 10/100 consumer-class switches, it is going to
> be very difficult for me to keep low-quality switches off of my
> network.
>
> If one of our researchers needs a few gigabit ports for some project,
> it is going to be pretty much impossible for me to say, "No, you have
> to spend at least $C 5000 on a switch because I instinctively don't
> trust those off-brands" when the researcher can see "gigabit switches"
> advertised for less than $C 100, and when $C 5000 is enough to pay a
> PostDoc for a few months of work.
>
> I had better have pretty strong arguments when the price difference is
> more than 50:1... especially when it's going to have to be me [whom the
> researchers don't have to pay out of their grants] that has to track
> down the problems rather than one of their people. You can predict the
> argument: "So you're telling me that whatever problems might -maybe-
> show up with this inexpensive switch, are going to take you two
> person-months worth of your labour to track down??" And of course the
> answer to that is "No". Now, if a cheap switch were to completely trash
> the LAN for a couple of hours then the work lost over all the employees
> would mount quickly, but complete trashing is rather unlikely: the
> most probable scenario is me ending up having to spend long
> unproductive hours to isolate some subtle problem, at perhaps
> a week's actual salary. The cost of mental aggrevation to me is
> not factored in. Yeah, like I need a plateload of frustrating network
> difficulties 'cuz I just don't have enough work to do

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:
>And in a way, that has me, in my role as a network administrator, quite
>concerned. With the prices of low-end unmanaged unconfigurable gigabit
>switches already having fallen to about the same price as low-end
>unmanaged unconfigurable 10/100 consumer-class switches, it is going to
>be very difficult for me to keep low-quality switches off of my
>network.

Maybe you need to spend some up-front time qualifying unmanaged
gigabit switches (or even 10/100 switches, I doubt most users can tell
the difference), so you can say "yes, you can do it, but you must buy
this particular switch".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:

>(snip)

>>I wonder if the NIC is one of those ones that pushes nearly
>>all the processing over to the CPU, like the old WinModems used to do?

> Now, who is making a Gigabit chipset that works that way?

Well, some do have more overhead than others. Some interrupt
once per packet, others less often.

>>5 ports on the switch is a bit odd, in that most gigabit chipsets
>>handle either 1, 2, or 4 ports, and it would be the 4 port sets that
>>would be least expensive. [See tomsnetworking.com from about March 2004
>>for some details on the chip wiring choices.]

Five is convenient in that you can make eight ports
with two chips, connecting one port of each together
internally. (I don't know that they actually do that.)

> With all due regard to tomsnetworking.com, there are several brands of
> inexpensive 5 port gigabit switch--if he says otherwise he's missed
> something.

Consider that you are at the end of a cable, and want to add
more computers. A four port switch only allows two additional
ports once you include the one to the existing computer and
the uplink. So five is 1.5 times better in additional ports.

-- glen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <9uhtd.217371$R05.31140@attbi_s53>,
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>
> Five is convenient in that you can make eight ports
> with two chips, connecting one port of each together
> internally. (I don't know that they actually do that.)
>

I am always perplexed why people think that an 8-port switch is somehow
more "natural" than 5, 6, or 10 ports. (The implication in the quote
being that it is desirable to build 8-port switches.)

I understand that powers-of-2 are "naturally efficient" sizes for
building *memory*, because the address space is log2 of the memory
space. However, the number of ports on a communication device is not
related to memory space, or powers-of-2.

In the early days of 10BASE-T, most hubs were built as multiples of 12
ports. There was a good reason for this, though. Cat-3 horizontal wiring
was often implemented in 25-pair cables; this was the standard for
pre-data phone wiring in offices. With 25 pairs, you can support 12
10BASE-T devices (at two pairs per device, with one spare pair). Rather
than terminate the cable with 12 RJ-45 connectors, it was common to use
a 50-pin "blue ribbon" connector; some hubs even came equipped with this
as an option. Twelve-port hubs were therefore cheaper (to install), and
fit naturally into the office wiring scheme.

Even today, 12-port (as well as multiples, such as 24 and 48) switches
are common for 100/1000BASE-T, even though we no longer use 25-pair
bundles when running Cat-5; the product marketing people just got used
to building "12+1" and "24+2" port devices. They probably don't even
know why.

The "naturally correct" number of ports for a switch should be logically
related to the statistics of workgroup size. For example, if 95% of
workgroups comprise 10 machines or fewer, then an 11-port switch (10 +
uplink) would seem "natural". (I am not saying these numbers are
correct; I am just showing the logic.) Of course, different port
configurations will be more or less efficient in various application
settings.

My point is just that there is no *technology* reason to build switches
in multiples of 8 ports.


--
Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting
21885 Bear Creek Way
(408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033
(408) 228-0803 FAX

Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Rich Seifert wrote:

> My point is just that there is no technology reason to build switches
> in multiples of 8 ports.
>

Other than chip set configuruations or other hardware packaging issues. For
example blocks of four RJ45 connectors are common. Other connector block
sizes, such as 5 or 6 are less common. If you look at a 5 port gigabit
switch, you'll see a block of 4 connectors and a single connector, even
though they may be right next to each other.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:21:44 +0000, Walter Roberson wrote:

> But Yes, pricing is headed way down.
>
> And in a way, that has me, in my role as a network administrator, quite
> concerned. With the prices of low-end unmanaged unconfigurable gigabit
> switches already having fallen to about the same price as low-end
> unmanaged unconfigurable 10/100 consumer-class switches, it is going to
> be very difficult for me to keep low-quality switches off of my
> network.

I share your concern to some extent, but I see a possible bright side.
With the cost of switches coming down so far, we are probably not far from
the point where we will be able to buy switches at the same cost and form
factor as a wiring station box. One of my biggest problems as a network
manager was the constant demand from software engineers to put more and
more systems (or in my case, network ports) in their cube. This usually
meant putting a 29XX or something in their cube - if I didn't we would
sometimes find a $50 Linksys hub with two of its ports connected to the
cube station block (both on the same VLAN of course) - the engineers
thought this would give them better performance, since the ports they were
connecting to were 6548 cards with "portfast" enabled, this sometimes made
things lively.

So, if there were manageable switches that could be installed like a
wiring station (say 4 ports/cube with a trunked uplink), the network would
be much easier to troubleshoot and manage. Power is a problem - I've seen
some 100TX switches that are wallplates that use power over ethernet, but
of course, that's copper. They also were not compatible with Cisco's power
over ethernet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <pMadncIUpcbBfyjcRVn-1A@rogers.com>,
James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:

> Rich Seifert wrote:
>
> > My point is just that there is no technology reason to build switches
> > in multiples of 8 ports.
> >
>
> Other than chip set configuruations or other hardware packaging issues. For
> example blocks of four RJ45 connectors are common. Other connector block
> sizes, such as 5 or 6 are less common. If you look at a 5 port gigabit
> switch, you'll see a block of 4 connectors and a single connector, even
> though they may be right next to each other.

Which is the "cause" and which is the "effect"? Do manufacturers make
RJ-45 connectors in "4-packs" because equipment designers often build
switches in 4-port, 8-port, 12-port configurations, or is it the other
way around?


--
Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting
21885 Bear Creek Way
(408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033
(408) 228-0803 FAX

Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <mpgbr0h4pu4v9m2pcm58ft27nt775sabva@4ax.com>,
<William P.N. Smith> wrote:
:roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:
:>And in a way, that has me, in my role as a network administrator, quite
:>concerned. With the prices of low-end unmanaged unconfigurable gigabit
:>switches already having fallen to about the same price as low-end
:>unmanaged unconfigurable 10/100 consumer-class switches, it is going to
:>be very difficult for me to keep low-quality switches off of my
:>network.

:Maybe you need to spend some up-front time qualifying unmanaged
:gigabit switches (or even 10/100 switches, I doubt most users can tell
:the difference), so you can say "yes, you can do it, but you must buy
:this particular switch".

I thought of that, but I don't have a lot of spare budget to buy
switches just to test out, and I don't have a lot of spare time or
equipment to set up meaningful testbeds. My job would in a way be
easier if we were business rather than research, in that I would then
be able to use the "We can't afford to have the network down, so we
-need- to spent the money and my time to do this properly" approach.
I am under serious pressure to spend -less- time on networks, not more.


I suggested to all the LAN and security admins across our organization
that we pool together our experiences with gig switches, but I only got
back one "count me in" and one useful annecdote. Others either didn't
anticipate adding any switches to their network for several years yet,
or else were content to follow the recommendations of our central
WAN networking group whose focus is on providing connectivity to
our HQ campus: that group can easily put together a business case for
needing high end equipment for the core links at HQ, but we in the
regional sites cannot afford even the maintenance contracts on the
class of equipment that HQ needs.
--
Live it up, rip it up, why so lazy?
Give it out, dish it out, let's go crazy, yeah!
-- Supertramp (The USENET Song)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <usenet-B5787C.08140307122004@news.isp.giganews.com>,
Rich Seifert <usenet@richseifert.com.invalid> wrote:
:I am always perplexed why people think that an 8-port switch is somehow
:more "natural" than 5, 6, or 10 ports. (The implication in the quote
:being that it is desirable to build 8-port switches.)

:I understand that powers-of-2 are "naturally efficient" sizes for
:building *memory*, because the address space is log2 of the memory
:space. However, the number of ports on a communication device is not
:related to memory space, or powers-of-2.

No, but the number of ports is naturally multiples of N, where N
is the number of ports per chipset. Gigabit chipset designers happen
to be working at 1, 2, or 4 ports per chipset. I don't have any experience
with chipset design to know whether there are advantages to even numbers
or powers of 2 at the chipset level.
--
What is "The Ultimate Meme"? Would it, like Monty Python's
"The World's Funniest Joke", lead to the deaths of everyone who
encountered it? Ideas *have* lead to the destruction of entire cultures.
-- A Child's Garden Of Memes

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:
>but the number of ports is naturally multiples of N, where N
>is the number of ports per chipset.

Actually it's X*(N-2)+2 where X is the number of chipsets and N is the
number of ports per chipset.

> Gigabit chipset designers happen
>to be working at 1, 2, or 4 ports per chipset.

"All" of my Gigabit switches are 5-port.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <1LadnUMPU-NzWyncRVn-3w@rogers.com>,
James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:

:Gigabit switches no longer have "uplink" ports, as all ports are now the
:same. So where older switches would often have 4 regular ports and 1
:uplink, they're all available for regular connections now.

I have looked at a small number of gigabit switches in a bit more
detail, and I have found that asymmetric service is still common.
The ports might all have the same nominal bitrate, but the internal
buffering for the ports are not always the same.

On the lower end devices (and not so low end either!), I have found
more than one device that cannot handle wire rate simultaneously across
groups of its ports [shared processing in a chipset that handles a
group of ports], but which can handle higher rates on a small number of
its ports (one or two). This is most obvious (most readily findable in
the documentation) when one of the ports is a GBIC or SFP and the
others are autonegotiating RJ45 ports.

The economics of this make some sense: the devices are aimed at
workgroups of hosts which have fairly idle traffic a lot of the time
(e.g., Windows desktop boxes) with large transfers relatively infrequent
and not often happening simultaneously with the different hosts.
Typical underprovisioning logic. The port or two that are configured
for higher rates would be intended as the uplink, not in the sense
of having a higher bitrate, but in the sense of being intended to carry
a higher average traffic load.
--
Cannot open .signature: Permission denied

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Walter Roberson wrote:

> In article <usenet-B5787C.08140307122004@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> Rich Seifert <usenet@richseifert.com.invalid> wrote:
> :I am always perplexed why people think that an 8-port switch is somehow
> :more "natural" than 5, 6, or 10 ports. (The implication in the quote
> :being that it is desirable to build 8-port switches.)
>
> :I understand that powers-of-2 are "naturally efficient" sizes for
> :building *memory*, because the address space is log2 of the memory
> :space. However, the number of ports on a communication device is not
> :related to memory space, or powers-of-2.
>
> No, but the number of ports is naturally multiples of N, where N
> is the number of ports per chipset. Gigabit chipset designers happen
> to be working at 1, 2, or 4 ports per chipset. I don't have any experience
> with chipset design to know whether there are advantages to even numbers
> or powers of 2 at the chipset level.

<http://www.netgear.com/products/details/GS605.php>
<http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=35&scid=42&prid=528>
<http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=1&pid=229>
<http://shop1.outpost.com/product/3887857?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG>
<http://www.planet.com.tw/product/product_dm.php?product_id=180&menu_id=2>
<http://www.lantech.com.tw/eng/products/index.php?mode=view&id=71>
<http://www.trendware.com/products/TEG-S50TXE.htm>
<http://www.jaht.com/products/switch/js3005gd.htm>
<http://www.justec.com.tw/jgs500e.htm>
<http://www.zyxel.com/product/model.php?indexcate=1052791880&indexFlagvalue=1028014886>
<http://www.smc.com/index.cfm?event=viewProduct&localeCode=EN_USA&cid=6&scid=&pid=1138>

Most of them in stock starting at under $50.00.

It is clear that _somebody_ is making a bargain basement 5-port gigabit
chipset.



--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Rich Seifert wrote:

(snip)

> I am always perplexed why people think that an 8-port switch is somehow
> more "natural" than 5, 6, or 10 ports. (The implication in the quote
> being that it is desirable to build 8-port switches.)

> I understand that powers-of-2 are "naturally efficient" sizes for
> building *memory*, because the address space is log2 of the memory
> space. However, the number of ports on a communication device is not
> related to memory space, or powers-of-2.

I think eight is a good size for a small box. The 24 and 48
port are rack mount size, but eight would be a waste of
rack space. Also, if one is comparison shopping it is hard
to compare if all companies make different numbers or ports.

(snip)

> The "naturally correct" number of ports for a switch should be logically
> related to the statistics of workgroup size. For example, if 95% of
> workgroups comprise 10 machines or fewer, then an 11-port switch (10 +
> uplink) would seem "natural". (I am not saying these numbers are
> correct; I am just showing the logic.) Of course, different port
> configurations will be more or less efficient in various application
> settings.

> My point is just that there is no *technology* reason to build switches
> in multiples of 8 ports.

Also, workgroup size changes fast enough that you want some
extra ports. Five might be a good size for a single small
office, and eight for the next increment from five.

-- glen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Rich Seifert wrote:

> In article <pMadncIUpcbBfyjcRVn-1A@rogers.com>,
> James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> Rich Seifert wrote:
>>
>> > My point is just that there is no technology reason to build switches
>> > in multiples of 8 ports.
>> >
>>
>> Other than chip set configurations or other hardware packaging issues.
>> For
>> example blocks of four RJ45 connectors are common. Other connector block
>> sizes, such as 5 or 6 are less common. If you look at a 5 port gigabit
>> switch, you'll see a block of 4 connectors and a single connector, even
>> though they may be right next to each other.
>
> Which is the "cause" and which is the "effect"? Do manufacturers make
> RJ-45 connectors in "4-packs" because equipment designers often build
> switches in 4-port, 8-port, 12-port configurations, or is it the other
> way around?

Yes. ;-)

Actually, it's hard to say. The switches and hubs I've seen, tend to be
multiples of 4, except those 5 port ones. Is it due to chip design? I
read an article in Linux Journal, a few years back. I seem to remember the
chip mentioned in the article, had 4 ports and a "bus" interface, which
could also be used as a port. I don't know the history of these devices,
but I wouldn't be surprised, if there was something that at one point made
multiples of 4 a good choice. The industry is full of this sort of thing.
For example, in the telcom world, a channel bank (used to connect voice
circuits to a T1) has 24 channels (in North America), so everything that's
designed to work with it, has 24 voice circuits. Then when you get to
DS1-DS3 multiplexors, the magic number is 28. Again, all the patch panels
etc., will have 28 circuits. I don't know how those numbers were
originally derived, but I bet it made sense to some engineer at that time,
possibly due to the use of some other device. In another message, you
mentioned 25 pair cable for phone systems. Prior to those channel banks
(mid 60's) 25 pair cables were not so common, as the older analog systems,
came with various numbers of channels.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Erik Freitag <erik.freitag@pobox.com> wrote:
>With the cost of switches coming down so far, we are probably not far from
>the point where we will be able to buy switches at the same cost and form
>factor as a wiring station box.

http://www.3com.com/products/en_US/detail.jsp?tab=features&pathtype=purchase&sku=WEBBNCNJSYS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

William P.N. Smith wrote:
> Erik Freitag <erik.freitag@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>With the cost of switches coming down so far, we are probably not far from
>>the point where we will be able to buy switches at the same cost and form
>>factor as a wiring station box.
>
>
> http://www.3com.com/products/en_US/detail.jsp?tab=features&pathtype=purchase&sku=WEBBNCNJSYS
>

Now if only they made a GIG version....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:09:43 -0500, wrote:

> Erik Freitag <erik.freitag@pobox.com> wrote:
>>With the cost of switches coming down so far, we are probably not far from
>>the point where we will be able to buy switches at the same cost and form
>>factor as a wiring station box.
>
> http://www.3com.com/products/en_US/detail.jsp?tab=features&pathtype=purchase&sku=WEBBNCNJSYS

Like I said:

> Power is a problem - I've seen
> some 100TX switches that are wallplates that use power over ethernet, but
> of course, that's copper. They also were not compatible with Cisco's power
> over ethernet.

These are the very wallplates I was thinking of ...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
> Rich Seifert wrote:
>> In article <pMadncIUpcbBfyjcRVn-1A@rogers.com>,
>> James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>>> Rich Seifert wrote:
>>>
>>> > My point is just that there is no technology reason to build switches
>>> > in multiples of 8 ports.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Other than chip set configurations or other hardware packaging issues.
>>
>> Which is the "cause" and which is the "effect"? Do manufacturers make
>> RJ-45 connectors in "4-packs" because equipment designers often build
>> switches in 4-port, 8-port, 12-port configurations, or is it the other
>> way around?

> Yes. ;-)

> Actually, it's hard to say. The switches and hubs I've seen, tend to be
> multiples of 4, except those 5 port ones. Is it due to chip design?

If your theory about the industry feedback forcing itself into some
chicken/egg scenario for multiples of ports is correct, then why are
we still in a situation of hotdogs being sold in 8-packs, while the
buns are in 6-packs?

Damian Menscher
--
-=#| Physics Grad Student & SysAdmin @ U Illinois Urbana-Champaign |#=-
-=#| 488 LLP, 1110 W. Green St, Urbana, IL 61801 Ofc217)333-0038 |#=-
-=#| 4602 Beckman, VMIL/MS, Imaging Technology Group217)244-3074 |#=-
-=#| <menscher@uiuc.edu> www.uiuc.edu/~menscher/ Fax217)333-9819 |#=-
-=#| The above opinions are not necessarily those of my employers. |#=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Damian Menscher wrote:

> If your theory about the industry feedback forcing itself into some
> chicken/egg scenario for multiples of ports is correct, then why are
> we still in a situation of hotdogs being sold in 8-packs, while the
> buns are in 6-packs?

You must have different standards where you live. Here, they're 8 buns and
12 dogs to a pack. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:01:46 -0500, James Knott wrote:

> Damian Menscher wrote:
>
>> If your theory about the industry feedback forcing itself into some
>> chicken/egg scenario for multiples of ports is correct, then why are
>> we still in a situation of hotdogs being sold in 8-packs, while the
>> buns are in 6-packs?
>
> You must have different standards where you live. Here, they're 8 buns and
> 12 dogs to a pack. ;-)


Well, the least common multiple is 24 for both of you, so there's really
no difference. Obviously, you're supposed to buy more than one package.
Didn't they cover this in "how to be a good consumer and make the economy
grow at your expense" class?