Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 01:30:11 -0800 From: Murray Stokely <murray@FreeBSD.org> To: Hiten Pandya <hitmaster2k@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: use switches instead of hubs in our examples Message-ID: <20011105013011.A1818@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <20011105092712.4961.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com>; from hitmaster2k@yahoo.com on Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 01:27:12AM -0800 References: <20011105092712.4961.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 01:27:12AM -0800, Hiten Pandya wrote: > i was thinking that... wouldn't it be better if we > used switches rather than hubs in those examples > provided in the "Advanced Networking" chapter... They are just examples. I don't see many advantages to using one over the other when the point of the example is to describe some other aspect of networking. If you think our "Advanced Networking" chapter could use a better description of the difference between a switch and a hub, then by all means please contribute a patch. > example1: isdn-twisted-pair > example2: natd > > the reason for this is that... for performance' > sake, > switches are better than hubs and there is a lot > less > congestion... i read that in a CCNA book ;) This is irrelevant when we are talking about setting up ISDN or natd. Thanks, - Murray To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011105013011.A1818>