Talk:Ethernet

Review

I was asked to do a review for the computing project - this article is C class but with more sources and maybe some trimming and some "dumbing down" it'd be B class or even a GA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is very difficult to follow. I was lost in the first two sentences. Could someone please provide a simple translation, at the front of the article, suitable for non-computer geeks. ProfKevinT (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the lead needs to be improved. Meanwhile, you might have a look at the simple English version. --Kvng (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewriting the intro to explain what I think are the most important thigns about ethernet without getting too technical. There is probablly still room for improvement though. Plugwash (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest that revision strikes me as more of a step backwards than an improvement. With these kinds of copyedits it is always very easy for errors to creep in even when making changes that do not appear to be significant.

• In general stylistic terms, it is littered with typos and grammatical errors, to the extent that on occasion I'm not even clear as to what the original intended meaning was. There are also a few Easter egg links that give no clue as to where the link target goes: eliminating sector-specific terminology is a desirable goal but not as the expense of all other considerations, and especially not those of clarity or correctness.
• Secondly, it contains a number of significant factual inaccuracies: one example that stick in my mind particularly is that twisted pair has no separate send and receive pairs at gigabit and faster.
• Finally, it is far too long. A lot of the problems would disappear if the text that does not belong there is trimmed out. The lead is intended to briefly summarise the rest of the article, not replicate it in different words. No should it make points that are not built on later in the article, other than for standard things such as alternative terms and pronunciation.

These are issues significant enough that I'm half tempted simply to revert, but I'm not going to do that now. If it is going to stay in the long term, though, it needs a whole lot more work. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC).

Yes, I was just about to give similar comments. There are several typos introduced, and it is a bit redundant for my taste too. I woud say, for example, remove the complications of explaining CSMA/CD since that is only of historical note now. I can try reworking to a compromise; might be better than a revert. W Nowicki (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Why is Ethernet capitalised? It appears to be neither an abbreviation nor a proper name. This deviation from standard English usage should get at least a passing reference in the introduction or History section. Zipperdeedoodah (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a proper name akin to a brand name. I don't think this needs to be mentioned in the article, but if you feel strongly about it, make the edit and we'll see how it goes. --Kvng (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I think it might be compared to a trademark, in the sense that it really should be used as an adjective and not a noun. That is, "the Ethernet local area network" or "the Ethernet network interface" not "the Ethernet". But since no one company defended it as a trademark, sources now generally use it as a noun, but still capitalize it. So I vote to keep the way it is, Ethernet. W Nowicki (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep caps; it's a proper noun. At some point there may be sufficient history to support changing to lowercase/common noun status but I--personally--don't think we're there yet. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we were over-ruled and it was changed back to lower case in many cases? I suppose this might be more gramatically correct so will not revert, but did not see that as a consensus. W Nowicki (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• • I started to lower them all, but saw it was throughout the article, and decided to wait, then saw this section. Not sure what to do. I would think that 'ethernet' is a generic term, not a proper noun. If it is a "proper noun", I surely would like to see some evidence, but won't buck the consensus. All uses I have seen outside of here show it as not capitalized. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please have a quick look at Internet capitalization conventions for background on a similar issue. Your assertion that all uses outside of here are lower case is quickly disproved with a quick search. Please revert your changes. The article should be consistent. --Kvng (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Arrogance aside, I did read it, and afterwards, I didn't see where it mandated that "E/ethernet" should be capitalized. The "Internet" may need to be capitalized as a proper noun, perhaps, but ethernet is a group of standards, not a trademark that I am aware of. At least the article doesn't claim it is, or give a reason why it is a proper noun. If you want to revert, no hard feelings, and I won't change anything else on the page, but I can't help but to think that that the name is generic and general and caps aren't required. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off as arrogant. Internet capitalization conventions does not talk about Ethernet. The part I found interesting was the discussion of proper nouns creeping towards common nouns over time fueled by widespread general use. I hope we can agree that Ethernet started off as a proper noun. Ethernet is more obscure than the Internet. If the Internet is not a common noun yet, then Ethernet certainly isn't either. Several editors including myself have chimed with support for a proper noun. You seem unsure about it. If we need to discuss it further, we will. In the meantime we need to put the article back to a self-consistent state. I have reverted your changes. --Kvng (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I had not noticed the ongoing conversation until well after I had made the edits, and I noticed that many were capitalized after making a few changes and figured there must be an ongoing conversation, but I was short on time and didn't follow up til the next day, although I did stop decapping. Again, I won't buck the consensus and at the very least would agree there are two equally valid sides of the debate. I would lean toward the non-cap side. This might be due to having spent the least couple of decades working on networks and seeing it used without caps (granted, in more informal settings.) I also did a uspto.gov search and found that the single term "ethernet" isn't listed as a registered trademark, dead or alive. Lots of marks have the word "Ethernet" in them, but the single term doesn't appear to have ever been registered. Of course, that doesn't mean it wasn't ever a brand name, but it (to me) further indicates that the term has fully entered the public domain for all intent and purposes. I don't know any company you have to pay to use the term on your product, which further bolsters my belief that it is a generic term. I also notice many tech terms are in all caps, but some are not. ie: "local area networks" is not first letter capitalized, yet "Medium Access Control" is. Honestly, I would love to see (or participate) in a larger discussion about when to cap and when not to when it comes to tech terms, to at least understand what the "rules" really are about them. So again, I won't buck the consensus and certainly have no intention of re-editing them, but it would appear to me that capitalization isn't needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence: the 1976 paper calls it "Ethernet" in caps as a proper noun, and the 1980 and 1982 specs say "The Ethernet" even more clearly a proper noun (although odd that "The" was not in the '76 paper?). Interesting that early journal papers call it generally "Ethernet local network" or "Ethernet network" as an ajective but it seems clear it was only under patent protection, not a trademark (to encourage other vendors, probably worth a mention). True that it is now a large family of related protocols, and standards bodies love to use unpronouncible acronyms and numbers (supposedly to put all nations into equal confusion). But vendors almost always capitalize. When in doubt, going with cited sources might be a good strategy; they cap. W Nowicki (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The 802.3 standards consistently capitialise it too, and I would argue that that is authoritative. Personally I don't see why it should be capitialised (it is not a brand name) but that would be a very "I don't like it"-ish argument to maintain. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC).

Time for a navbox?

Most of the articles on Ethernet have a somewhat random collection of "See also" wikilinks. Perhaps it is time to create a navigation template? For example, there is one for {{IEEE standards}} the question is where to stop. Some obvious ones:

• IEEE 802.3 official standards
• Ethernet physical layer
• 10BASE5 original PHY
• 10BASE2 thin net
• Ethernet over twisted pair
• Autonegotiation
• Fast Ethernet - hate that name, it is hardly "fast" any more?
• Gigabit Ethernet
• 10 Gigabit Ethernet
• 100 Gigabit Ethernet
• Terabit Ethernet (crystal ball?)
• Power over Ethernet
• EtherType although used in much more than Ethernet now
• Ethernet Alliance trade body

Details:

• Media Independent Interface
• Gigabit Media Independent Interface
• XAUI
• 10 Gigabit Media Independent Interface
• Enhanced small form-factor pluggable transceiver
• XFP transceiver
• Ethernet flow control

But also some are borderline:

• Media Access Control, generic, probably not
• Carrier sense multiple access with collision detection, official name, but not used in wired Ethernet any more
• 10BROAD36 10BASE-FB 10BASE-FL historic, obscure
• 100BaseVG 802.12, historic
• StarLAN 1BASE5, 802.3e, obscure
• LattisNet not "standard" but major notable influence
• zillions of others in Category:Ethernet

My basic impression is that there are way too many small articles while some topics are covered in various bits and pieces. For example, one idea would be to consolidate several of the historic-only variants into an article 10 Megabit Ethernet or similar title (but keep the mainline variants separate), and rename Fast Ethernet to be 100 Megabit Ethernet. That might be more consistent and make navigation easier. W Nowicki (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Intersting idea. But it might be huge. Is it possible to develop several templates instead? For example one for Ethernet, or perhaps wired LAN:s, one for 802.11 or wlan:s, etc?Mange01 (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the fundamental principle of engineering: "with enough time and resources, anything can be done". The above list was meant for an "Ethernet" template, while both "LAN" "Wired LAN" or "Wireless LAN" could have their own. There already is {{802.11 network standards}} and {{Comparison of mobile Internet standards}} although they are tables that usually go in the body, not a navbox, but serve the same purpose. {{UTP Cable Standards}} already exists for cables, probably need one or more for fiber-optic articles. {{Cellular network standards}} includes WiMax but not WiFi.

But the more I think about it, the more merges make sense. For example, all the gigabit PHYs are described in the Gigabit Ethernet article, and all the ten gigabit PHYs in 10 Gigabit Ethernet. Several of these are actually still used. But obscure PHYs that nobody ever used have stand-alone articles with no or few sources? They might not survive deletion requests without demonstrated notability, so to preserve them merges might be the best option. Also several articles link to Ethernet when they really mean "the original 10 Megabit Ethernet". W Nowicki (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you know when it is time for a navbox. I'm personally satisfied with Category:Ethernet which I reviewed within the last year. I'm not opposed to a navbox. I'm not sure exactly what merges you are referring to. Be WP:BOLD and merge or put up merge banners where discussion would be helpful. It is true that while there are 100M, 1G and so on, there is no 10M Ethernet article. I couldn't find a way to fix that on my first pass through these articles mainly because one of the editors was set on preserving Ethernet over twisted pair. --Kvng (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't the only one who felt Ethernet over twisted pair should have its own article. We do have a redirect from 10BASE-T, and there would be nothing wrong with including it in an eventual navbox. WP:CLN also makes it clear that categories and navboxes are not redundant with each other. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

WiFi wouldn't be included in {{Cellular network standards}} because it isn't a cellular network standard. The best starting point I've found for navboxes are categories. Once a group of articles has been categorised, those categories can be used to create subgroups for a navigational template. If the template becomes very large, it can be coded to have certain sections autocollapsed or uncollapsed and parameters can be passed to it as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As for "when" to start a template, it is taste a bit but generally: when the "See also" entries at the end of articles tends to be long, but still does not include articles that are closely related. I went ahead and started one at {{Ethernet}} that has many of the major ones, but other ones will probably need to get added as it evolves. But do not plan on adding everything in the category, just ones that often appear in "see also" lists.

Agree Ethernet over twisted pair is notable enough to deserve its own article. I would merge 10/100 and 10/100/1000 in there too - they are already mentioned in the lead, just change the link to embold. The 10BASET-T in its lead is already embolded, but there is a wikilink later on in the article that might be confusing (going back to itself). I will add more merge proposals as the template work progresses. W Nowicki (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Addresses and routing

Here's my chance to learn something. Don't routers and switches work on the *ethernet* MAC addresses? Not the higher-level (IP) addresses that might be carried in a data frame, but the lowest-level MAC addresses? If you didn't have these addresses in the Ethernet frames, a router would have to understand the protocol and format of a data frame to figure out what to do. It'd be like the Post Office steaming open each letter to read the heading on the first page, instead of the address on the envelope. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as ethernet is concerned a router is just another node on the network. When a host sends a packet to a destination to a node not on the network it sends it to the router - the destination MAC address is set to that of the router to ensure the router gets it. The IP packet within contains the ultimate destination IP address, not that of the router (ignore NAT for the minute) which is what the router uses to make its forwarding decision. However, the complete IP packet, including IP header, is simply payload from ethernet's perspective. All ethernet sees is a packet from the host (with the sender MAC to that of the host) to the router (with the destination MAC set to the router). What the router then does with that packet ethernet neither knows nor cares about. You're correct that the router then needs to understand what is in the payload of the ethernet frame, but only as far as the network layer (IP) - it needs to understand the IP header but all other contents of the packet are an irrelevance. As such the router still needs no knowledge of TCP, yet alone HTTP, email or anything else may be contained in the IP packet for basic packet forwarding.

Switching is different. That does work on the MAC addresses but only has any meaning on the local network. The primary motivation is to keep links free of traffic that known not to be needed on a certain link, by keeping track of where source MAC addresses originate from: if the switch knows a particular MAC is found out of a particular port it doesn't need to send that packet out all of the other ports. However, this is not routing, if you connect two networks up with a switch the result is a single larger network, not two networks connected by the switch. The distinction is made because of the number of nodes that need to be considered: most switches can keep track of a few thousand MAC addresses and want port they are one. The whole system would fall apart if the switch had to consider the MAC of every machine on the Internet to say nothing of the problem if a remote node is not on an ethernet network and therefore has no MAC. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC).

It's just occurred to me perhaps a picture is helpful here.

An application layer program gives its payload to the transport layer (UDP here, it could equally be TCP) which adds its own header (source and destination port numbers, amongst other things) to the data. It is then passed to the network layer which adds an IP header (IP addresses). Finally the whole assembly is put in an ethernet frame (MAC addresses and checksum). The router strips off the ethernet frame before processing and looks at the IP header to determine where to send it. It will then re-encapsulate it in another data link layer packet for the outgoing interface. That could be another ethernet frame, or equally a PPP frame, or whatever else is used on that particular link. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Our articles on routers and switches would confuse someone from Cisco.

If I understand this, routers use IP addresses (or whatever other protocol is being carried on Ethernet frames). A router must "speak Bocce" and understand what's inside an Ethernet frame. A (n Ethernet) switch, on the other hand, is purely an Ethernet creature and only knows that MAC address N is physically attached to port X and MAC address M is on port Y, and sends a frame between the two ports when it detects those two MACs are trying to speak to each other (keeping this chatter off the segment attached to Port Z). If this is a correct restatement, then could we also add it to the swtich and router articles, adn as much of the switch part as is needed here? (Preferably with some block diagrams.) The MAC address is important for subdividing a network into physical segments, not for interconnecting networks. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A router is a kind of (packet) switch that operates at layer 3. A bridge is a switch that operates at layer 2. There are occasionally switch-like devices at higher layers, but they are rarely called such these days. (For example, some people used to use the word "switch" to describe software that gateways email between several different protocols.) The original "switch" in this sense was of course the telephone switch, which actually was a switch in the electrical sense. Some years ago, a number of vendors started to make marketing claims about their products being "true" swiches, or similar terminology, as a way of sowing confusion; each vendor tried to claim that their particular technology was a "real switch" and the other vendors' products weren't. But properly speaking, any device that examines the contents of a packet to decide where to send it next is functioning as a switch. 121a0012 (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually our articles on computer networking probably confuse many readers, those from Cisco and many others. :-) In general, lead sections of high-importance articles might not be good places to engage in speculation. They should just sumarize the body and give some context to general readers. I think one thing missing is how Ethernet was a good fit to IP, which helped lead to both of their sucesses. Metcalfe and Boggs were Stanford students (PARC is on Stanford land) and Vint Cerf was on the faculty for example. Ethernet was designed to handle multiple protocols from the start (since PARC ran several by then) but was well tuned to IP, which meant the routing and switching advancements applied to both. I just realized the layering stuff also got dropped out of the lead. All this needs to be in the body first with citations of course, and then we can summarise in the lead. W Nowicki (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Metcalfe was at Harvard (seconded to MIT Project MAC) when he developed what would become Ethernet when he brought it to PARC. IP was still five years or so in the future. (Metcalfe in fact built an ARPAnet host interface for the PDP-10 while at Project MAC.) 121a0012 (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Half duplex compatibility

A recent edit introduced "...acted as half duplex links for compatibility and to allow for the use of hubs". That's not quite right because we have to assume that a network is designed for more than two hosts, and there is no Ethernet procedure to have full duplex between more than two hosts (a switch is required). Also, two typos need to be fixed: it's "separate" and "receive". Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The only way a network can be composed of more than two hosts with 10base-T is to use a hub (which doesn't allow for full duplex) or a switch (which does allow for full duplex). Plugwash (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess the wording is ok, but my concern was that this is an article on Ethernet and there is simply no possible Ethernet method of having full duplex other than between only two hosts, or using a switch which does various tricks to avoid the limitations of the shared medium. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it wasn't ideal wording but I was trying to fix blatently wrong info without going into a major restructuring job. The article previously claimed that full duplex switched 10BASE-T networks were common when afaict they were virtually nonexistent (afaict autonegotiation which is important for practical full duplex deployment wasn't introduced until the introduction of fast ethernet) without adding too much bloat/repitition to the article.

I've tried a slightly different wording now but IMO the REAL fix IMO is to merge the "history" section with the "evoloution" section and possiblly the "standardisation" section to provide a single unified progression on how ethernet developed but that is more work than i'm personnally prepared to do on the article. Plugwash (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I would be in favor of a more unified narative in roughly chronological order. That is, this would become more of a "history of Ethernet" article, with summaries of the specific steps along the way. Might take some time to get around to it of course. W Nowicki (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

To my eye, the only problem was that there were three paragraphs covering Evolution at the end of the History section. I have moved these. The History section is incomplete in that it does not cover much beyond inception. We need to add some details about the growth of Ethernet. I have added a reminder about that to the article. --Kvng (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Done History section now extends to present. --Kvng (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Apart from technical considerations, "Since its commercial release, Ethernet has retained a good degree of compatibility." (Introduction) is not adequate for me. Compatibility with what? Hardware, legacy networks, protocols, girlfriends... 24.27.31.170 (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Eric

The intro does need work. WP:SOFIXIT. --Kvng (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've tried several times but every time I do the intro-minimalists come along and deconstruct it. Plugwash (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Telecomm or not

There seems a slow edit war over the {{Telecommunications}} template. I can understand both sides to some extent. Certainly historically Ethernet was a local area network, a very different world than telephone company networks. But over the years the boundary has blurred. With Ethernet in the first mile, Metro Ethernet and Carrier Ethernet, the traditional "phone companies" are now in the Ethernet business, and Ethernet standards have accumulated features normally associated with telecom companies. So I would vote to keep it in. The article is in the telecom wikiproject, and in the template itself for that matter. Do not see the harm in it, since it comes up unexpanded anyway. It could use some culling, e.g. ARPANET and Vint Cerf etc. are questionable. Any chance of a consensus? W Nowicki (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not everything that has recently been tagged with the telecom template actually belongs in that category. One might as well tag electricity and bolts, since you need both to make a telecommunication system. Every last ham radio article has been tagged; really, tag just the main article "amateur radio" and leave the low-level noisy details of repeaters and contesting out of the "telecomm" ambit. Ethernet runs for 100 metres and is used inside a building. If you can run it between cities, it's not Ethernet any more. Inside a building is not telecommunications. Templates should not be added to articles needlessly. "Wiki Project Physics", anyone? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you are talking about category or project above? But your claim about Ethernet is very outdated. The single-mode fiber physical layers with longer wavelengths, such as, say 1000BASE‑LX can extend ten kilometers. For many years switches had SFP ports that can support both short and long reach PHYs. A packet coming out of the switch has no idea if it is going into a laser that makes it travel kilometers between cities, or a twisted pair cable that goes centimeters. With a media converter it can even go back and forth on the same link, short reach, long reach, short reach. Certainly packets have no clue about building boundaries. And as end-users are increasingly using wireless, fairly soon if not now it will be at least a plurality of telecomm companies who buy copper and fiber Ethernet products. W Nowicki (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ethernet runs for 100 metres and is used inside a building."

100BASE-TX and 1000BASE-T (IIRC 10BASE-T has similar limits but they wern't spelt out as explicitly) run for 100 meters and are usually used within a building (you can run them between buildings but it's generally considered inadvisable, especially if the buildings have independent electrical supplies) but they are only a tiny part of what Ethernet is.

"If you can run it between cities, it's not Ethernet any more."

Once CSMA/CD was replaced by switching there was no longer any fundamental limit on the length of an ethernet link other than that imposed by the physical layer in use. I don't see how fiber physical layers are any less "Ethernet" than twisted pair physical layers are (neither was the original physical layer and both fiber and twisted pair physical layers started to appear at about the same time). Plugwash (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As per the categories, Ethernet is a telecommunications technology. I don't think it has been miscategorized. Telecommunications is a broad topic and the new template has been pasted widely. I'm not convinced that these navigation templates are particularly useful but, if we're going to have them, this article is a much better target that some of the other places it has recently landed. --Kvng (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you could get rid of CSMA/CD and still call it "Ethernet". Oh well, in a world where we click on "Start" to shut down the computer, I shouldn't expect better. We'll be reduced to pointing and grunting within a decade, at this rate. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, one musn't show one's age. :-) Ethernet started phasing out CSMA/CD in the 1990s with switches and the full-duplex PHYs. The BASE-T chips still support it for backward compatibility, but the 10 Gigabit and above PHYs do not even try. Irony of course is it remains in the title of the 802.3 standards documents. We should make it clearer in the article. There is a great quote from Metcalfe (we need to get a cite for) on something like the 25th anniversary of Ethernet, when he was asked what computer networks would be like in another 25 years. He said he had no idea, except that they would still be called "Ethernet" (perhaps after the quote about Fortran which turned out to be less true). W Nowicki (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean if I invite a bunch of buddies over for a LAN party using a nasty little hub I bought at Staples, we're not using CSMA/CD? Staples still sells hubs, don't they...last time I was there they were right between the 5 1/4 floppies and the carbon paper, right across from a display of Gestetners. Oh dear. When did I get old? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"if I invite a bunch of buddies over for a LAN party using a nasty little hub I bought at Staples, we're not using CSMA/CD?" -- if you are using a hub (technically a multiport repeater) you are using CSMA/CD, if you are using a switch (technically a multiport bridge) then you most likely aren't using CSMA/CD. Note that it's not unheard of for switches to be mislabeled as hubs.

"Staples still sells hubs, don't they...last time I was there they were right between the 5 1/4 floppies and the carbon paper" -- i'm not in the habit of buying my network gear from staples but it's YEARS since i've seen a hub for sale at any place I normally buy computer stuff (there still seem to be new old stock hubs floating around the internet). Plugwash (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So CSMA/CD still lives! I was very disappointed that my "wireless router" from Staples couldn't tell me which RJ 45 8P8C port was which. It's not really a "router", at least on the wired side. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A typical "wireless router" is logically (physical implementations may vary) a combination of 3-4 devices.

• A router with two ports (LAN side and WAN side) and NAT capbility (which is enabled by default but can usually be turned off)
• An ethernet switch
• A wireless access point
• Sometimes a DSL/cable/whatever modem

-- Plugwash (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ethernet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Puffin (talk · contribs) 18:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.	"Collisions reduce throughput by their very nature."I don't understand, what does this mean? Please clarify. Clarified. Collisions require retransmission. --Kvng (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC) "had only 2 ports" Why "only" two ports? Why is this to small? Please clarify. "cabling in a star network were recognized." Recognized by who? Please clarify. Clarified. Larger number of ports produces star network. Paragraph following discusses star vs. bus. --Kvng (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Words to watch: In note 1, you say "rather than the packet type in the current Ethernet standard, which specifies the protocol being used." Avoid using the word current, it becomes outdated, even in notes. You use the word "Significant" twice in the article, avoid this word, it is a peacock term. "packets of various sizes" Avoid the word various, it's too vague. "several magnitudes of speed" Avoid the word several, it's too vague. "lots of hosts with long cables " How long are the cables, how many is lots? Please, clarify and be less vague. "became very important with the introduction of Fast Ethernet." How important is "very important?" This is too vague, please clarify. "an be very slow when many stations are simultaneously active." How slow is "very slow?" Please clarify. "are lots of hosts with long cables" How many hosts is "lots?" Please clarify. Layout Whole numbers under 10 should be spelled out. For example you say: "Early repeaters had only 2 ports, but they gave way to 4, 6, 8, and more ports as the advantages of cabling in"
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
	2a. it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout.	FN2: Needs publishing date. Dated. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN4: Needs publishing date, "retrieved" needs a capital letter. Changed {{Cite}} to {{Cite web}} and that seems to have fixed it. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN5: Is a journal and should be cited as such. FN5 is a patent and is cited with {{US patent}}. Seems good to me. FN6 is a journal and is cited as such. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN8: Needs publishing date and page number. Citation shows document was published. Page number unnecessary. Added date and URL. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN9: Needs publishing date. Now FN10. Date added. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN10: Needs publishing date. Now FN11. Date added. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN12: "Retrieved" needs a capital letter. Changed {{Cite}} to {{Cite news}} and that seems to have fixed it. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN 15 and FN9: Same reference with different pages. You can use this template to help you format it correctly. Done. Nice trick. Thanks. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN 20: Needs publisher and publishing date. Removed reference. Was just referencing previous reference. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN 21: You don't need a colon after the ISSN, this is to make sure it has a link. Now FN20. Change id to issn. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN 25: Needs page number. Now FN24. Page added. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN 26: Needs the publishing date. Now FN25. Publication date not available for this web resource. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
	2b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.	"Version 2 was published in November, 1982 and defines what has become known as Ethernet II. Formal standardization efforts proceeded at the same time." Unsourced, please provide a citation. "Notwithstanding its technical merits, timely standardization was instrumental to the success of Ethernet. It required well-coordinated and partly competitive activities in several standardization bodies such as the IEEE, ECMA, IEC, and finally ISO." Unsourced, please provide a citation. "Since IEEE membership is open to all professionals, including students, the group received countless comments on this technology." Unsourced, please provide a citation. "n addition to CSMA/CD, Token Ring (supported by IBM) and Token Bus (selected and henceforward supported by General Motors) were also considered as candidates for a LAN standard. Due to the goal of IEEE 802 to forward only one standard and due to the strong company support for all three designs, the necessary agreement on a LAN standard was significantly delayed." Unsourced, please provide a citation. "and as a standard in 1985. Approval of Ethernet on the international level was achieved by a similar, cross-partisan action with Fromm as liaison officer working to integrate International Electrotechnical Commission, TC83 and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) TC97SC6, and the ISO/IEEE 802/3 standard was approved in 1984." Unsourced, please provide some citations. "Ethernet evolved to include higher bandwidth, improved media access control methods, and different physical media. The coaxial cable was replaced with point-to-point links connected by Ethernet repeaters or switches to reduce installation costs, increase reliability, and improve management and troubleshooting. Many variants of Ethernet remain in common use." Unsourced, please provide a citation. "(and hence the same interface for higher layers), and can be readily interconnected through bridging." Please provide a citation. "Through the first half of the 1980s, Ethernet's 10BASE5 implementation used a coaxial cable 0.375 inches (9.5 mm) in diameter, later called "thick Ethernet" or "thicknet". Its successor, 10BASE2, called "thin Ethernet" or "thinnet", used a cable similar to cable television cable of the era. The emphasis was on making installation of the cable easier and less costly." Unsourced, please provide some citations. "Use of a single cable also means that the bandwidth is shared, so that network traffic can be very slow when many stations are simultaneously active." Unsourced, please provide a citation. Almost all of the "Repeaters and hubs" section is unsourced, please provide some citations. Please provide some more citations for "Bridging and switching" section. Some statements in there are likely to be challenged and need a direct citation. "Advanced networking" section is completely unsourced, please provide citations. The whole section "Varieties of Ethernet" is unsourced, please provide citations. Same with Ethernet frames and Autonegotiation. "Ethernet frame format have influenced other networking protocols." In the lead, this is not mentioned in the rest of the article and if it is, it is unclear, and is unsourced. "a good degree of compatibility." In the lead, this is not mentioned in the rest of the article. What makes the compatibility so good? Please provide sources and inline citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Until citations are provided above, I can't assess this.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It may be confusing to people unfamilar to the subject, for example you say: "(ISO) TC97SC6, and the ISO/IEEE 802/3" What does this mean?
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.	Until citations are provided above, I can't assess this.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
	6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is not currently ready for good article status, so I will not be listing it at this time. Please consider the points raised above and after working on it, take it to WP:Peer review again and then please renominate at WP:GAN. There are too many major problems in this article which much be resolved before the article can be promoted to GA. Puffin Let's talk! 19:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)