Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ftth who wrote (429)	7/16/2000 4:30:15 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

What is also interesting is that some office WLAN segments will stem from switches that are wire-based, mixing in with wireless ones. The temptation will be to mix and match port types indiscriminately, wouldn't you agree? What do you suppose the implications will be in this case? I would imagine that all main node elements (aggregation devices, such as switches and hubs) would have to "collapse" to a backbone device of a higher throughput rate, maybe a router or a faster switch, if there is to be universal connectivity throughout the enterprise in question. To phrase this a little differently, I'm wondering if there are any recommended optimal practices on how mixed segment types are to be handled in a standards compliant way. For example, in wired systems there are rules governing how many repeaters could be cascaded within a given LAN, and ways in which to prevent forwarding loops. In a plug and play environment that mixed-media wired/wireless LANs imply, I would imagine that things could get a little hairy, unless adherence to some rules of orchestration was maintained.

To: ftth who wrote (429)	7/16/2000 4:35:54 AM
From: axial	Respond to of 46821

Hi, dave - Yup, I'm starting to sag here: I mixed up my wired (802.3) and RF LAN protocols, I think. The 802.11 collision avoidance mechanisms, including RTS/CTS/ACK are briefly addressed in this post, last year, by Artifex: CSMA/CD is an acronym for Carrier Sense Multiple Access/Collision Detection, and it is in fact a means of avoiding collisions on a LAN, but its operation is a bit more complicated. The first point of complication is "Carrier Sense". Strictly speaking, this isn't as simple as "listening before talking", but is rather a detection of another station's intelligence already occupying the communications channel. For a wired network such as Ethernet, the distinction is not terribly important, but in a heterogeneous wireless environment, it could be. Stations using different modulation schemes are unable to demodulate each others' carriers, and so each could assume that the channel is clear, when in fact they are interfering with each other. Even stations with the same modulation at the fringe of each others' reception range may interfere fatally with each others' communication with other stations. Most wireless systems use some form of a channel assessment algorithm based on a number of factors, usually including carrier detection and received RF level. A station typically will not transmit if its receiver detects a high RF level, whether or not it can demodulate the signal. The second part of the complication is Collision Detection. On an Ethernet, each station listens to the channel as it transmits, and if it detects another stations signal at the same time as its own, both stations signal a collision and stop transmitting, allowing the medium to recover more quickly from a collision. RF systems aren't able to listen to the transmit channel at the same time as they are transmitting, and are therefore unable to detect collisions with other stations. Section 9 of 802.11 specifies extensive collision avoidance mechanisms also designed to avoid the "hidden station" and "exposed station" problems associated with simple "listen before talk" protocols. As a last aside, 802.11a is a proposal to extend 802.11 for higher-speed operation in the 5GHz ISM band by adding OFDM operation to the PHY, and 802.11b is a similar proposal for the 2.4GHz band. Message 11212558 Thanks for the clarification Dave, and I welcome any others that you may add, from time to time. Maybe I'll even begin to understand what I'm talking about! >g< Best regards, Jim