Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:2930 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:7337
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bloom-beacon!spdcc!eli
From: eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: bridges & address filtering
Keywords: 26.2 mile ethernet
Message-ID: <3451@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 89 03:43:00 GMT
References: <326@brolga.cc.uq.oz>
Reply-To: eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias)
Lines: 30

In article <326@brolga.cc.uq.oz> ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz (George Michaelson) writes:
>
>On a parallel note, what is the effect of address and <other> filtering
>on throughput? My personal measure based on light loadings of some
>2Mbit ethernet bridges is that ANY address filtering makes throughput 
>appreciably slow. 

	some bridges really do support "full ethernet throughput".
	(define that term if you can!).  shall i plug our product?
	performance analysis of bridges is nontrivial -- but it is quite
	possible to get nearly 10 Mbps throughput through a lanbridge.

-Of course large packet protocols are less affected 
>but per-character packet activity is a bummer. I was surprised how visible 
>this could be given 10Mbit one side, 2Mbit the other.
	
	if you are interested in long distance ethernet extension,
	please give me an email.  also, if you have any ideas about
	how (why) to use a 20 Mile logical ethernet to connect Internet
	sites, drop me another email!  technically, two of our (Chipcom's)
	Marathon Bridges could run much further than 26.2 miles, if 
	anyone builds a broadband plant that long...  volunteers?


steve elias, chipcom corporation

..................
-- 
 ...... Steve Elias (eli@spdcc.com);(6178591389); {}
 { Apple: keep your lawyers off of our computers! }