Talk:Gigabit Ethernet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as High-importance).

Mentioning Apple?[edit]

How exactly is mentioning that Apple allegedly first put a 1000BASE-T port into a PC relevant in article about Gigabit-Ethernet technology? As far as I can tell, Apple had nothing to do with developing the actual standard, the technology or the core parts of the NIC electronics in G4 Powerbooks. And obviously network devices (at least Cisco) and server computers (at least IBM) sported 1000BASE-T before Apple's laptop did.

That's a bit like mentioning that the first car to sport a built-in FM radio was brand X, in an article about FM radio, without mentioning either the producer of that car radio set or who built the first fm radio at all.

Anyway, looks like some kind of stealth advertising to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


The notes section includes a link to a page that has gone: AndrewRH (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not convinced it was worth salvaging, but I fixed it with an archive link. -—Kvng 00:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


I have removed some misleading information about crossover cables in 1000Base-T. Somebody should write a better piece about how 1000BaseT has no TX and RX pairs, but gigabit NICs will usually negotiate MDI-X for legacy 100Base-TX connections. 2A00:67A0:A:6:222:15FF:FE88:AAE2 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not misleading. 1000BASE-T does transmit and receive on all pairs but pairs need to be matched before transmitted data can be properly received. Note that there's no other handshake than Autonegotiate and Auto-MDIX for finding out which pair is what. For 100BASE-TX downward, Auto-MDIX works just the same way as with native FE ports. After all, a GbE port can't really do MDI-X when connected to a legacy switch/hub port, can it? Zac67 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Misprediction in reference[edit]

A recently added reference at the end of the 1000BASE-TX section dates from 2002 and incorrectly predicted 1000BASE-TX would become the more popular and cheaper option, which is the opposite of the claim in the article: "However, this solution has been a commercial failure, likely due to the required Category 6 cabling and the rapidly falling cost of 1000BASE-T products". This reference may still be useful as a source for wire pair usage and as a source for the "in theory" claim in the previous sentence: "The simplified design would have, in theory, reduced the cost of the required electronics by only using four unidirectional pairs (two pairs TX and two pairs RX) instead of four bidirectional pairs." So maybe the reference just needs to be moved back a sentence, and an additional source found (if needed) for the fact that 1000BASE-TX ended up "losing" to 1000BASE-T. — ChrstphrChvz (talkcontribs) 07:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

1000Base-LX MMF Conditioning cable.[edit]

The article suggests that 1000Base-LX can be used to 300m without a conditioning cable. Is this correct? The IEEE 802.3 clause 38.4.1 says the conditioning cable is required for MMF and the source provided suggests the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nateelmore (talkcontribs) 15:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please explain why you reverted my edit to Gigabit Ethernet[edit]

Thank you for watching over Wikipedia.

You reverted this edit [1] with a comment about it being Too prominent for single sentence entry in a person article. But the edit isn't in a person article, it's in an article about a technical invention (Gigabit Ethernet).

I inserted a single sentence, in a section named "History", because the section never actually said who invented Gigabit Ethernet. The existing sentences were about generic Ethernet, or about the standards committee work that followed the technical invention. A single sentence about the actual history of gigabit ethernet's invention, among seven sentences in the lead paragraph of "History", didn't seem out of place to me. Many of the actors doing that invention already have Wikipedia pages, so are notable, worth mentioning. Two news reports support the facts mentioned. I'm still not sure what you think was too prominent about my edit. Please explain. Gnuish (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The edit summary was a bit screwed up, sorry. The reasons for revert: Granite Systems doesn't even have its own page, instead it redirects to David Cheriton. Your edit makes this company for too prominent for "a gigabit Ethernet switch start-up" (according to source). If the company or person article has earned that prominence for inventing anything special, being first with anything etc, that isn't established by either source or the article page itself. As it is, there are a dozen companies like that and we don't want to mention them all here. --Zac67 (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
It might be that the 3Mb/s Ethernet that Xerox developed for the Alto was mostly done by one person, but in fact was done by four.[1] But if any one person is named for Gigabit, it would be Rich Seifert who, as they say and that link notes, wrote the book on Gigabit Ethernet. Gah4 (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gnuish: I agree with Zac67. Establishing notability for Granite Systems would be a good place to start; The ref you included with your reverted contribution does not get us there. ~Kvng (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I do have to say that I have been surprised both ways on what is notable. I will ask Rich and see what he says. Gah4 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, the official results are in. Rich says:
As far as contributing to the DESIGN (i.e., algorithms, circuitry, encoding, etc.), David did nothing. Most of the work was done under the auspices of the IEEE 802 committee, and (to the best of my knowledge) I never saw David attend a single meeting. I have no idea what he was working on in the background at Stanford (he was a professor there).
David DID do work on gigabit switches, and together with Andy Bechtolsheim (one of the founders of Sun Microsystems), founded a company called Granite Systems to capitalize (monetize) their switch and chip effort. Granite was purchased by Cisco (at an outrageous price, as I recall). The purchase was not so much about Granite’s technology, but simply a way to hire an existing team of engineers who already were “on the ground, running.” The acquisition was measured in “X million per employee”.
Also, seems that means that Granite Systems should redirect to Cisco. Gah4 (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Granite Systems is not mentioned in Cisco Systems so not a good target. We could redirect to List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems. I'm not convinced that's better than the current destination: David Cheriton ~Kvng (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I asked on talk:Cisco Systems but no reply yet. Gah4 (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Multipoint data communication system with collision detection". USPTO. Retrieved 19 December 2019.