Do two Transceivers = Collision Domain?

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

To settle an old argument, do two transceivers with a cable between them
(of PHD spec lenght) constitute a valid collision domain? Years ago I was
told that was considered extremely bad practice....
4 answers Last reply
More about transceivers collision domain
  1. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    "Hal Kuff" <kuff@tessco.com> wrote:
    >To settle an old argument, do two transceivers with a cable between them
    >(of PHD spec lenght) constitute a valid collision domain?

    Sure, why not? If they both talk at the same time, they'll collide.
    [Well, unless they are full-duplex, but then there are no collisions,
    so talking about a domain for them isn't sensical...]

    >Years ago I was
    >told that was considered extremely bad practice....

    What was? To put two transcievers on a cable? To consider that a
    collision domain?

    Maybe I'm missing something, what's "PHD spec lenght"?
  2. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Sorry I meant PHY, that is to say the cable length would satisfy minimum
    length .....Honestly, there seemed a debate occuring in past years about
    whether the spec supported the use of transceivers in this manner.


    <William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
    news:qioba1hrgifodd1j5budr7e40049spi1b5@4ax.com...
    > "Hal Kuff" <kuff@tessco.com> wrote:
    >>To settle an old argument, do two transceivers with a cable between them
    >>(of PHD spec lenght) constitute a valid collision domain?
    >
    > Sure, why not? If they both talk at the same time, they'll collide.
    > [Well, unless they are full-duplex, but then there are no collisions,
    > so talking about a domain for them isn't sensical...]
    >
    >>Years ago I was
    >>told that was considered extremely bad practice....
    >
    > What was? To put two transcievers on a cable? To consider that a
    > collision domain?
    >
    > Maybe I'm missing something, what's "PHD spec lenght"?
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <11ac90c34kvc7ea@corp.supernews.com>,
    "Hal Kuff" <kuff@tessco.com> wrote:

    > Sorry I meant PHY, that is to say the cable length would satisfy minimum
    > length .....Honestly, there seemed a debate occuring in past years about
    > whether the spec supported the use of transceivers in this manner.
    >

    In the case of 10/100/1000BASE-T, having only two transceivers connected
    by a proper cable is the ONLY way to connect them. Unlike
    10BASE2/10BASE5 (coaxial Ethernet), you cannot have more than two
    transceivers connected to a given cable.

    Whether those two transceivers comprise the entire collision domain or
    only a portion of it is a function of the hub device (bridge/switch vs.
    repeater). Remember, the hub device has an internal transceiver for each
    port, and all 10/100/1000BASE-T configurations use only point-to-point
    links between pairs of transceivers.


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

    On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Hal Kuff wrote:

    > To settle an old argument, do two transceivers with a cable
    > between them (of PHD spec lenght) constitute a valid collision
    > domain?

    Any chance of a translation into English for native speakers?

    Back in co-ax days, there was a recommended minimum distance between
    nodes for proper collision resolution, if that has any relevance to
    the question.
Ask a new question

Read More

Domain Ethernet Card Cable Networking