nanog mailing list archives
Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again?
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:13:43 -0400
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 13:46:36 CDT, Jeff Harper <jharper () verizon com> said:
Well, in my opinion, networking is an exact science, it's very binary, and the definitions must follow suit. It has to be. Chaos would erupt if it wasn't, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!
Which is why 100BaseT autoconfigure works so great that there's never any need to manually nail a card down to full/half duplex. ;) /Valdis (who has been doing <guess what> of late ;)
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again?, (continued)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Miles Fidelman (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Christopher B. Zydel (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Bill Woodcock (Jul 05)
- RE: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Dennis Dayman (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Christopher B. Zydel (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Tom Lettington (Jul 05)
- RE: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Roeland Meyer (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Richard A. Steenbergen (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Bill Woodcock (Jul 05)
- RE: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Roeland Meyer (Jul 05)
- RE: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Jeff Harper (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 05)
- RE: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Tom Walton (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Miles Fidelman (Jul 05)