Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:16:31 GMT
Rich Seifert <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Come to think of it, we should have changed the name "collision" to
"arbitration cycle" and avoided two decades of arguments about how
to avoid collisions!
Nah, then people would have been asking how to get their networks out
of binding arbitration :)
rick jones
--
No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Jobert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
.
- References:
- Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- From: BernieM
- Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- From: googlegroups
- Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- From: BernieM
- Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- From: Rich Seifert
- Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- From: Stephen Sprunk
- Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- From: googlegroups
- Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- From: Stephen Sprunk
- Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- From: Rich Seifert
- Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- Prev by Date: Re: csma/ca
- Next by Date: Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- Previous by thread: Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- Next by thread: Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- Index(es):