From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as Low-importance).


This article describes 100VG as a contender for Ethernet, but it was so in marketing only. During its brief existence, engineers tended to argue that 100VG was not CSMA/CD and therefore not Ethernet. Whether this is relevant in a historical context is arguable though, since CSMA/CD is all but dead at this point given the ubiquity of switched Ethernet, and the fact that at 1 Gbps and above, CSMA/CD is no longer used at all. Art Cancro 20:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't it take off?[edit]

The article claims that this standard performed better than regular fast ethernet with hubs. So why wasn't it chosen? limited vendor support? network admins sticking with what they know? technical limitations? (I notice the article talks about the token staying in the hub, does that mean you could not connect two hubs together?) random chance? implementation costs? Plugwash (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ethernet switching was becoming popular at the same time. ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)