|WikiProject Computing / Networking / Hardware||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
- I agree, so I've put mergeto and mergefrom templates into those pages. Guy Harris 02:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too enthusiastic about that idea. The Ethernet article is already big, if not too big. The large standards listing table is much better placed here. I suggest we leave it the way it is and update it as necessary. The Power Over Ethernet stuff, OTOH, might be better placed in the main article. Wefa 05:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- So what about that table makes it apply to "802.3" rather than "Ethernet"? At this point, "Ethernet" and "802.3" are pretty much the same thing - as of 1997, "802.3" doesn't imply "length field, not type field", so that's no longer the distinction between "802.3" and "Ethernet". Should there be a split of the Ethernet page, with a top-level page, linking to subpages for items such as the list of PHY types, but with no distinction made between "802.3" and "Ethernet"? Guy Harris 07:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I like the split of "technical stuff goes to Ethernet article, standardization history goes to 802.3 article". A history of the antics of the type/length field would belong in the 802.3 article, but really just confuses the "today facts" of the Ethernet article. --Alvestrand 08:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)--Alvestrand 08:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- So the history section of the Ethernet page would just deal with Experimental Ethernet and DIX Ethernet and then put the rest of the history in the 802.3 article, with the 802.3 article handling the differences between DIX and 802.3 and the reconciliation in 802.3x-1997? Guy Harris 08:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite - if someone wants to chart the various technologies' market shares or years of dominance, that would (in my opinion) belong on the Ethernet page. But the DIX/802.3 war & reconciliation is (in my opinion) only interesting for poeple who enjoy standards history - it never significantly impacted the Real World. So that belongs on the 802.3 page. --Alvestrand 20:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I oppose the merger. This page should talk about the standard more indepth. 126.96.36.199 17:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Since there seems to be a consensus towards oppose, certainly on the Ethernet page (I also include myself in this opposition) I have removed the tag. The Ethernet article is too long to put a massive table of information in - there is no downside to keeping the two articles. QmunkE 18:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Having reread the comments on Ethernet I realised this may actually only be slight majority view opposing merge, however since no action has been taken for over a month in terms of approving the merge I have removed the tag.
Power over Ethernet
My draft text for power over ethernet, so I don't lose it:
Power Over Ethernet technology describes any system that transmits electrical power, in addition to data, to remote devices over standard twisted-pair wire in an Ethernet network. This technology is useful for powering IP telephones, wireless LAN access points, webcams, hubs, and other appliances where it would be inconvenient or infeasible to supply power separately. The technology is comparable to POTS telephones, which also receive power and data (although analog) through the same cable. It works without requiring any modification to the existing Ethernet cabling infrastructure. Power over Ethernet is standardized in IEEE 802.3af. There are several ad-hoc standards for supplying power over Ethernet cable that predate IEEE 802.3af, however most future solutions will probably adhere to the IEEE standard.
Rhobite 22:38, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
This article starts "IEEE 802.3 is a collection of IEEE standards defining the physical layer and transport layer of ... Ethernet".
Transport layer links to the Transport layer article.
Surely, it should be Data Link layer? (Maybe transport layer is used in a slightly different context here but if so then it shouldn't link to the layer 4 article).
DIX Ethernet is thin?
Is DIX Ethernet v2.0 really thinnet, as the table here claims? v1.0 is thicknet. Guy Harris 06:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- No it is not. References in Ethernet#History make that clear. I have corrected the article. --Kvng (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
DIX vs II
This article says, "...DIX Ethernet, followed by Ethernet II," implying these are two different things. But Ethernet II framing says, "Ethernet II framing (also known as DIX Ethernet...," implying they are the same. I suggest this confusion be cleared up (in the article, not here on the talk page). Rees11 (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- DIX and Ethernet II are the same thing. I've added a reference to the Ethernet II article. I've removed the erroneous content from this article because it is covered correctly and in more detail in Ethernet#Ethernet frame types and the EtherType field. --Kvng (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- DIX and Ethernet II are, but Ethernet II and IEEE 802.3 are not. IEEE 802.3 framing differs a) the type of packet field is replaced by length (as is already noted) and b) the Ethernet II preamble is broken up into a shorter preamble and a start of frame delimiter. Finally I know for a fact that this machine accepts Ethernet II and 802.3 frames but only ever sends 802.3. It is not true to say that Ethernet II "is used on all forms of Ethernet by protocols in the Internet protocol suite." Crispmuncher (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
802.3 is probably better thought of as the name of the working group that produces Ethernet physical layer standards. This article should be changed to be more like 802.1. --Kvng (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Conversion of bandwidths to megabytes/second
Do we really need these? Especially when they have been done using a simplistic divide-by-8 method rather than considering how data is encoding for transmission. For example, 10 and 100Mbit ethernet both use 8b10b coding: every byte is ten bits long on the wire meaning the theoretical maximums are 1.0 and 10.0 megabytes per second before we even consider framing overhead and so on. More generally, techniques such as bit stuffing make calculations impossible since the conversion factor depends on the data being sent. The IEEE do not quote these figures, they are highly ambiguous (coding and framing are internal to the standards and therefore externally visible bandwidth will always be lower), and they are of little practical use. I think they should simply be dropped. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
Layer muddle RFC
Is IEEE 802.3 a network layer technology? Tarian.liber claims that it is and prefers to discuss it at Template_talk:OSIstack#Network_.2F_Link_Layer_Muddle. Please visit there and help us sort this out. ~KvnG 03:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, he claims that IEEE 802.3 is a family of standards which defines a stack of protocols, going from the physical (OSI Layer 1) to the network (OSI Layer 3).
- Tarian.liber (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)