Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!purdue!bu-cs!kwe
From: kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England))
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: 10BaseT operation, spec?
Message-ID: <29911@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 20 Apr 89 16:57:29 GMT
References: <1627@Portia.Stanford.EDU> <17142@cos.com>
Reply-To: kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England)
Followup-To: comp.dcom.lans
Organization: Boston U. Information Technology
Lines: 29

In article <17142@cos.com> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes:
>In article <1627@Portia.Stanford.EDU> morgan@jessica.stanford.edu
 (RL "Bob" Morgan) writes:
>>
>>I've seen people referring to the 10BaseT wiring closet device as a
>>repeater.  Is this just loose terminology or is my understanding of
>>10BaseT/Lattisnet wrong?
>
>I think the tranceiver vs repeater problem is more a matter of
>terminology than anything else.  The TP is the "transmission medium" of
>the network, even though it can have only one device on each end.  In
>other words, each "network segment" can have only two devices on it.
>(If you're wondering, yes, you can hook two DTEs together directly.)
>Since the wire closet doodad connects multiple segments, it is a
>"repeater" in 802.3 terminology.
>

	It's a little more than terminology.  LattisNet is more like a
multiport transceiver (maybe it *is* exactly a MPT) while 10BaseT is a
multiport repeater.  It does have some ramifications.
	For example, 10BaseT can isolate faults to the port.
LattisNet isolates to the board, or multi-port.
	SynOptics says that they will be compatible on the board
level, ie mix LattisNet and SynOptics 10BaseT in the same chassis.
	SynOptics graciously offered LattisNet to the committee, but
they opted for a format more compatible with other IEEE specs, for
example the fiber optic spec, FOIRL.
	And that is why two TP xcvrs should plug together and work
like a sex-reversed repeater.  Not sure they will, but they might.