25 Jun
2018
25 Jun
'18
2:20 p.m.
All,
A few months ago, I mentioned one of my suppliers had Belden 89880 thicknet
Ethernet cable. Well, last week I finally made it down to his warehouse and
picked it up! The final bits for a test segment came in today, so I set up
a little link between my SPARCstation 10 and DEChub 90:
https://imgur.com/a/GDUR36j
Anyone interested in cable can email me directly (please change the subject
line, it'll get binned into my cctalk folder otherwise). I can provide any
level of "kit" from just the cable to fully ready to go. I do have a very
few NOS Cabletron ST-500-01 transceiver/non-intrusive tap kits as well.
Thanks,
Jonathan
25 Jun
25 Jun
6:46 p.m.
On 06/25/2018 04:20 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:
All,
A few months ago, I mentioned one of my suppliers had Belden 89880 thicknet
Ethernet cable. Well, last week I finally made it down to his warehouse and
picked it up! The final bits for a test segment came in today, so I set up
a little link between my SPARCstation 10 and DEChub 90:
https://imgur.com/a/GDUR36j
Wow,a blast from the past. You say the spool is heavy!
Yes, I remember those, indeed they were plenty heavy.
But, I'm glad we have 100 and 1000 mbit ethernet now, much
better! Years ago I ran thinwire all through my house, now I
have twisted pair.
Jon
26 Jun
26 Jun
9:31 a.m.
On Jun 25, 2018, at 2:20 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I do have a very
few NOS Cabletron ST-500-01 transceiver/non-intrusive tap kits as well.
What does non-intrusive mean in this context? I thought that thick ethernet taps always
required drilling a hole in the cable.
--
Mark J. Blair <nf6x at nf6x.net>
http://www.nf6x.net/
10:04 a.m.
On 06/26/2018 10:31 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:
What does non-intrusive mean in this context? I
thought that thick
ethernet taps always required drilling a hole in the cable.
There are taps that screw onto the N connectors. Thus you have to
intrusively disconnect segments, to insert the (so called) tap.
Conversely, you can drill / clamp / tap onto live segments in a
non-intrusive manner.
My assumption was that "tap" comes from the second form. I always
thought there was a different name for the first form. But I believe
they were less common, hence fall under the "tap" term which is more
popular.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
10:13 a.m.
On Jun 26, 2018, at 1:04 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 06/26/2018 10:31 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:
I don't remember seeing the "insert between N connectors" type.
"Tap" to me means a DEC H4000 "vampire tap", and yes, those use a
drill to install. That should be non-disruptive if done correctly.
I believe the original concept was just a probe that would poke through the cable to
contact the center connector. The drill came because the cable was too tough to penetrate
without it. Maybe a side effect of switching to Teflon flame-resistant insulation. Early
prototype cable seemed to be polyethylene, with a bright yellow outer jacket with black
stripes marking the tap spacing. That might have been softer and suitable for no-drill
tapping.
paul
What does non-intrusive mean in this context? I
thought that thick ethernet taps always required drilling a hole in the cable.
There are taps that screw onto the N connectors. Thus you have to intrusively disconnect
segments, to insert the (so called) tap.
Conversely, you can drill / clamp / tap onto live segments in a non-intrusive manner.
My assumption was that "tap" comes from the second form. I always thought
there was a different name for the first form. But I believe they were less common, hence
fall under the "tap" term which is more popular. 
12:30 p.m.
On 06/26/2018 01:13 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Not to mention the fact that if you just shoved a pin from the outside
to the center
conductor you were bound to create a short between the shield and center
conductor.
On Jun 26, 2018, at 1:04 PM, Grant Taylor via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 06/26/2018 10:31 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:
I don't remember
seeing the "insert between N connectors" type. "Tap" to me means a
DEC H4000 "vampire tap", and yes, those use a drill to install. That should be
non-disruptive if done correctly.
I believe the original concept was just a probe that would poke through the cable to
contact the center connector. The drill came because the cable was too tough to penetrate
without it. What does non-intrusive mean in this context? I
thought that thick ethernet taps always required drilling a hole in the cable.
There are taps that screw onto the N connectors. Thus you have to intrusively disconnect
segments, to insert the (so called) tap.
Conversely, you can drill / clamp / tap onto live segments in a non-intrusive manner.
My assumption was that "tap" comes from the second form. I always thought
there was a different name for the first form. But I believe they were less common, hence
fall under the "tap" term which is more popular. Maybe a side effect of switching to Teflon
flame-resistant insulation. Early prototype cable seemed to be polyethylene, with a
bright yellow outer jacket with black stripes marking the tap spacing. That might have
been softer and suitable for no-drill tapping.
I have never seen taps that could be installed without drilling.
By the way, I still have my drill.? :-)
bill
10:19 a.m.
On 06/26/2018 10:04 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
My assumption was that "tap" comes from the
second form.? I always
thought there was a different name for the first form.? But I believe
they were less common, hence fall under the "tap" term which is more
popular.
My impression from the old days of this system was that the so-called
"vampire taps" were superior in that they caused less of an impedance
"bump" when attached, as compared to the cut-and-connector-only type.
Perhaps that's not true--can anyone verify this?
--Chuck
10:36 a.m.
On Jun 26, 2018, at 1:19 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 06/26/2018 10:04 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
I haven't heard that, and it sounds questionable. All taps are impedance bumps
because they attach a stub to the cable. The spec limits the length of that stub for this
reason. But N connectors are constant-impedance types, in RF service rated up into the
GHz range, so the connectors should certainly not be an issue.
If a cut type "tap" were designed as a substantial size PCB with a connector at
each end and wires (rather than transmission line) in between, that would certainly be
bad, but that's just an example of the fact that you have to use transmission line
design techniques when dealing with transmission lines.
A cut design could allow for shorter stubs than is mechanically feasible with a vampire
tap, so if anything it would seem that the cut design has the potential of being better.
But it doesn't really matter; a correctly built vampire tap installed properly will
give you a compliant Ethernet, and a thicknet segment can be quite large because the
design was done so carefully.
paul
My assumption was that "tap" comes from
the second form. I always
thought there was a different name for the first form. But I believe
they were less common, hence fall under the "tap" term which is more
popular.
My impression from the old days of this system was that the so-called
"vampire taps" were superior in that they caused less of an impedance
"bump" when attached, as compared to the cut-and-connector-only type.
Perhaps that's not true--can anyone verify this?
11:20 a.m.
The intrusive part does indeed refer to the "intrusive to continued
service" aspect (e.g. cutting the line, crimping new ends...or at best
unscrewing the N connectors and removing a coupler fitting). I'm not sure
about the lesser insertion loss/impedance bump of vampire taps vs. N
connectors, but the vampire taps almost certainly make it much simpler to
keep the taps at 2.5 meter intervals, thus lessening the "stacking up"
effect of reflections from the small impedance bumps of the taps.
Interestingly, Cabletron even calls the ST-500-02, which comes with a BNC
adapter, a "tap." This "tap" gets tee'd in to a 10base2/thinnet
run like
any other thinnet card. The N type tap seems to be the least common, at
least judging by surplus channels. Which is kind of weird when you think
about it -- you'd sort of expect that most vampire taps were abandoned in
place, on the cable they were installed on.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Jun 26, 2018, at 1:19 PM, Chuck Guzis via
cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 06/26/2018 10:04 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
I haven't heard that, and it sounds questionable. All taps are impedance
bumps because they attach a stub to the cable. The spec limits the length
of that stub for this reason. But N connectors are constant-impedance
types, in RF service rated up into the GHz range, so the connectors should
certainly not be an issue.
If a cut type "tap" were designed as a substantial size PCB with a
connector at each end and wires (rather than transmission line) in between,
that would certainly be bad, but that's just an example of the fact that
you have to use transmission line design techniques when dealing with
transmission lines.
A cut design could allow for shorter stubs than is mechanically feasible
with a vampire tap, so if anything it would seem that the cut design has
the potential of being better. But it doesn't really matter; a correctly
built vampire tap installed properly will give you a compliant Ethernet,
and a thicknet segment can be quite large because the design was done so
carefully.
paul
My assumption was that "tap" comes from
the second form. I always
thought there was a different name for the first form. But I believe
they were less common, hence fall under the "tap" term which is more
popular.
My impression from the old days of this system was that the so-called
"vampire taps" were superior in that they caused less of an impedance
"bump" when attached, as compared to the cut-and-connector-only type.
Perhaps that's not true--can anyone verify this?
12:31 p.m.
On 06/26/2018 01:19 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 06/26/2018 10:04 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
wrote:
All taps show up clearly on a TDR.
bill
My assumption was that "tap" comes from
the second form.? I always
thought there was a different name for the first form.? But I believe
they were less common, hence fall under the "tap" term which is more
popular.
My impression from the old days of this system was that the so-called
"vampire taps" were superior in that they caused less of an impedance
"bump" when attached, as compared to the cut-and-connector-only type.
Perhaps that's not true--can anyone verify this?
30 Aug
30 Aug
10:14 p.m.
On 06/25/2018 03:20 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:
Anyone interested in cable can email me directly
(please change the
subject line, it'll get binned into my cctalk folder otherwise). I can
provide any level of "kit" from just the cable to fully ready to go. I
do have a very few NOS Cabletron ST-500-01 transceiver/non-intrusive
tap kits as well.
Hi Jonathan,
I wanted to take a moment and say "Thank You!" for making it a
possibility for me to have a functional 10Base5 / Thicknet / Hosepipe
network segment.
I received mine in the mail today. :-)
I look forward to picking up a couple of NICs with AUI interfaces and
the requisite AUI cables to connect to the transceivers that you provided.
If this was eBay I'd say: 5 out of 5 - I would do business with
Jonathan again.
Thank you again. :-)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
31 Aug
31 Aug
7:04 a.m.
Excellent, glad it made it there quickly and safely! If anyone needs AUI
cables, I don't have a bunch on hand, but I can pass on the seller I buy
them from -- 1m cable, $20 shipped in the US.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 1:14 AM Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 06/25/2018 03:20 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk
wrote:
Anyone interested in cable can email me directly
(please change the
subject line, it'll get binned into my cctalk folder otherwise). I can
provide any level of "kit" from just the cable to fully ready to go. I
do have a very few NOS Cabletron ST-500-01 transceiver/non-intrusive
tap kits as well.
Hi Jonathan,
I wanted to take a moment and say "Thank You!" for making it a
possibility for me to have a functional 10Base5 / Thicknet / Hosepipe
network segment.
I received mine in the mail today. :-)
I look forward to picking up a couple of NICs with AUI interfaces and
the requisite AUI cables to connect to the transceivers that you provided.
If this was eBay I'd say: 5 out of 5 - I would do business with
Jonathan again.
Thank you again. :-)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
8:18 a.m.
On 08/31/2018 08:04 AM, systems_glitch wrote:
Excellent, glad it made it there quickly and safely!
Me too.
If anyone needs AUI cables, I don't have a bunch
on hand, but I can pass
on the seller I buy them from -- 1m cable, $20 shipped in the US.
Is there any reason not to go ahead and share the information publicly?
I know that I will eventually need to acquire some AUI cables.
The kicker is that I had two, exactly what I need and the NICs to
connect them to before a cross country move that I got rid of a LOT of
stuff. (I keep finding out exactly how much I'm replacing. :-( No fun.)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
8:25 a.m.
Honestly? I'm worried about someone reading the list archive and hoarding
them all away. It's a limited resource.
I'll send you the link off-list.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 11:18 AM Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 08/31/2018 08:04 AM, systems_glitch wrote:
Excellent, glad it made it there quickly and
safely!
Me too.
If anyone needs AUI cables, I don't have a
bunch on hand, but I can pass
on the seller I buy them from -- 1m cable, $20 shipped in the US.
Is there any reason not to go ahead and share the information publicly?
I know that I will eventually need to acquire some AUI cables.
The kicker is that I had two, exactly what I need and the NICs to
connect them to before a cross country move that I got rid of a LOT of
stuff. (I keep finding out exactly how much I'm replacing. :-( No fun.)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
10:21 a.m.
I understand 10Base5 cable being limited, though regular 50 ohm coax generally works fine
if you work around the lack of stripes.
AUI cable, though, that doesn't seem much of a problem. Straightforward N pair
twisted pair cable, terminated with DA15 connectors. The slide locks are not quite common
but I believe still exist in parts catalogs, and you can do without them in any case.
paul
On Aug 31, 2018, at 11:25 AM, systems_glitch via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Honestly? I'm worried about someone reading the list archive and hoarding
them all away. It's a limited resource.
I'll send you the link off-list.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 11:18 AM Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On 08/31/2018 08:04 AM, systems_glitch wrote:
>> Excellent, glad it made it there quickly and safely!
>
> Me too.
>
>> If anyone needs AUI cables, I don't have a bunch on hand, but I can pass
>> on the seller I buy them from -- 1m cable, $20 shipped in the US.
>
> Is there any reason not to go ahead and share the information publicly?
>
> I know that I will eventually need to acquire some AUI cables.
>
> The kicker is that I had two, exactly what I need and the NICs to
> connect them to before a cross country move that I got rid of a LOT of
> stuff. (I keep finding out exactly how much I'm replacing. :-( No fun.)
>
>
>
> --
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die
>
11:45 a.m.
Yeah, you can make up your own AUI cables with less-than-spec wire and get
away with it no problem, but I was referring to NOS premade AUI cables
being a limited resource.
I've made them with DA15s and CAT5 cable before, and it works for short
runs.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 1:21 PM Paul Koning <paulkoning at comcast.net> wrote:
I understand 10Base5 cable being limited, though
regular 50 ohm coax
generally works fine if you work around the lack of stripes.
AUI cable, though, that doesn't seem much of a problem. Straightforward N
pair twisted pair cable, terminated with DA15 connectors. The slide locks
are not quite common but I believe still exist in parts catalogs, and you
can do without them in any case.
paul
On Aug 31, 2018, at 11:25 AM, systems_glitch via
cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Honestly? I'm worried about someone reading the list archive and hoarding
them all away. It's a limited resource.
I'll send you the link off-list.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 11:18 AM Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On 08/31/2018 08:04 AM, systems_glitch wrote:
>> Excellent, glad it made it there quickly and safely!
>
> Me too.
>
>> If anyone needs AUI cables, I don't have a bunch on hand, but I can
pass
>> on the seller I buy them from -- 1m
cable, $20 shipped in the US.
>
> Is there any reason not to go ahead and share the information publicly?
>
> I know that I will eventually need to acquire some AUI cables.
>
> The kicker is that I had two, exactly what I need and the NICs to
> connect them to before a cross country move that I got rid of a LOT of
> stuff. (I keep finding out exactly how much I'm replacing. :-( No
fun.)
>
>
>
> --
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die
>
12:08 p.m.
On Aug 31, 2018, at 2:45 PM, systems_glitch
<systems.glitch at gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, you can make up your own AUI cables with less-than-spec wire and get away with it
no problem, but I was referring to NOS premade AUI cables being a limited resource.
I've made them with DA15s and CAT5 cable before, and it works for short runs.
That figures; the impedance is not quite the same but close enough (78 ohms vs. 100) and
AUI cable is supposed to be shielded. But there should be a fair amount of margin.
paul
12:07 p.m.
Yeah, I forget what the original allowed length was for drop cables, but I
seem to remember it striking me as quite long! A few feet of CAT5 (or even
better, STP) has a lot of wiggle room :P
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:08 PM Paul Koning <paulkoning at comcast.net> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2018, at 2:45 PM, systems_glitch
<systems.glitch at gmail.com>
wrote:
Yeah, you can make up your own AUI cables with less-than-spec wire and
get away
with it no problem, but I was referring to NOS premade AUI cables
being a limited resource.
I've made them with DA15s and CAT5 cable before, and it works for short
runs.
That figures; the impedance is not quite the same but close enough (78
ohms vs. 100) and AUI cable is supposed to be shielded. But there should
be a fair amount of margin.
paul
12:19 p.m.
On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:07 PM, systems_glitch
<systems.glitch at gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, I forget what the original allowed length was for drop cables, but I seem to
remember it striking me as quite long! A few feet of CAT5 (or even better, STP) has a lot
of wiggle room :P
50 meters, says IEEE 802.3.
paul
12:25 p.m.
On 08/31/2018 01:07 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:
Yeah, I forget what the original allowed length was
for drop cables,
but I seem to remember it striking me as quite long! A few feet of CAT5
(or even better, STP) has a lot of wiggle room :P
I think I've seen reports of multi AUI port taps. Correct?
Could you have one multi-port tap in a computer lab (of 5 ~ 20 machines)
and connect them all to the single tap? Sort of like what is done with
10BaseT cables to a hub in the room?
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
12:32 p.m.
On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 08/31/2018 01:07 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:
You may be thinking of the DELNI, a multi AUI hub. Not a repeater, apparently. DEC also
made a repeater in that era, the DEREP -- just two ports. That may be why the DELNI was
built, as a way to get more fanout without the complexity of a multiport repeater built
out of discrete electronics.
Yeah, I forget what the original allowed length
was for drop cables, but I seem to remember it striking me as quite long! A few feet of
CAT5 (or even better, STP) has a lot of wiggle room :P
I think I've seen reports of multi AUI port taps. Correct? Could you have one multi-port tap in a computer lab
(of 5 ~ 20 machines) and connect them all to the single tap? Sort of like what is done
with 10BaseT cables to a hub in the room?
Yes, the DELNI allowed for that, you'd plug in up to 8 NICs and then connect the
uplink port to a transceiver.
paul
12:32 p.m.
Allied Telesis made a "multi port tap" that provided four AUI ports off a
single Ethernet tap. I don't know if it was a repeater/hub inside, or what.
It was much smaller than a DELNI or DEREP.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:33 PM Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Grant Taylor via
cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 08/31/2018 01:07 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:
> Yeah, I forget what the original allowed length was for drop cables,
but I
seem to remember it striking me as quite long! A few feet of CAT5 (or
even better, STP) has a lot of wiggle room :P
I think I've seen reports of multi AUI port taps. Correct?
You may be thinking of the DELNI, a multi AUI hub. Not a repeater,
apparently. DEC also made a repeater in that era, the DEREP -- just two
ports. That may be why the DELNI was built, as a way to get more fanout
without the complexity of a multiport repeater built out of discrete
electronics.
Could you have one multi-port tap in a computer
lab (of 5 ~ 20 machines)
and connect them all to the single tap? Sort of like what
is done with
10BaseT cables to a hub in the room?
Yes, the DELNI allowed for that, you'd plug in up to 8 NICs and then
connect the uplink port to a transceiver.
paul
12:45 p.m.
Allied Telesis made a "multi port tap" that
provided four AUI ports off a
single Ethernet tap. I don't know if it was a repeater/hub inside, or what.
It was much smaller than a DELNI or DEREP.
That totally sounds like the one located in the Cray. My guess is most
people would hook AUI transceivers but they just run ribbon cables to 4
boards then I think the 10base2 feeds into a BNC T plugged into it.
- Ethan
12:50 p.m.
On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:32 PM, systems_glitch
<systems.glitch at gmail.com> wrote:
Allied Telesis made a "multi port tap" that provided four AUI ports off a
single Ethernet tap. I don't know if it was a repeater/hub inside, or what. It was
much smaller than a DELNI or DEREP.
That's not surprising. The DEC boxes were from the very early days of 10 Mb/s
Ethernet, when transceivers and repeaters were large complex circuits. Remember the
DEUNA? That was two hex Unibus boards, quite full of stuff.
Soon afterwards all that stuff was integrated into an IC or two. Transceivers were a bit
more difficult because of the analog design involved, and not everyone got it right. I
remember a 10Base2 transceiver chip that would take down VAXclusters by sending garbage
occasionally.
paul
2:56 p.m.
Allied Telesis made a "multi port tap" that
provided four AUI ports off a
single Ethernet tap. I don't know if it was a repeater/hub inside, or what.
It was much smaller than a DELNI or DEREP.
Pretty sure I know the device you're talking about and I think it was
a hub internally. I liked it a lot better than the DELNI.
Come to think of it, I liked most of Allied Telesyn's stuff. I still have
a 10Mbit hub of theirs handling the low speed systems and the 10b2 segment
going to the HP 9000, and a whole mess of the transceivers which are
periodically useful on AUI-only systems.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- #include <std_disclaimer.h> ------------------------------------------------
3:01 p.m.
Yeah, Allied Telesyn/Telesis made (and still makes!) really decent hardware
at a midrange price. I often recommend their gigabit and PoE switches for
cost-sensitive projects, especially where management isn't really needed.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 5:56 PM Cameron Kaiser via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Allied Telesis
made a "multi port tap" that provided four AUI ports off a
single Ethernet tap. I don't know if it was a repeater/hub inside, or
what.
It was much smaller than a DELNI or DEREP.
Pretty sure I know the device you're talking about and I think it was
a hub internally. I liked it a lot better than the DELNI.
Come to think of it, I liked most of Allied Telesyn's stuff. I still have
a 10Mbit hub of theirs handling the low speed systems and the 10b2 segment
going to the HP 9000, and a whole mess of the transceivers which are
periodically useful on AUI-only systems.
--
------------------------------------ personal:
http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com *
ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- #include <std_disclaimer.h>
------------------------------------------------
1 Sep
1 Sep
11:36 a.m.
Speaking of AUI and hubs etc., any interest in a 10baseT hub with an AUI port?
Allied Telesyn/CentreCom MR820T
or
IBM 8222-016 (AUI _and_ 10base-2)
?
m
----- Original Message -----
From: "systems_glitch via cctalk" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
To: "Cameron Kaiser" <spectre at floodgap.com>; "CCTalk"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: Thicknet/10base5 Test Segment: The Cable is In!
Yeah, Allied Telesyn/Telesis made (and still makes!)
really decent hardware
at a midrange price. I often recommend their gigabit and PoE switches for
cost-sensitive projects, especially where management isn't really needed.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 5:56 PM Cameron Kaiser via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > Allied Telesis made a "multi port tap" that provided four AUI ports
off a
> > single Ethernet tap. I don't know if it was a repeater/hub inside, or
> what.
> > It was much smaller than a DELNI or DEREP.
>
> Pretty sure I know the device you're talking about and I think it was
> a hub internally. I liked it a lot better than the DELNI.
>
> Come to think of it, I liked most of Allied Telesyn's stuff. I still have
> a 10Mbit hub of theirs handling the low speed systems and the 10b2 segment
> going to the HP 9000, and a whole mess of the transceivers which are
> periodically useful on AUI-only systems.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------ personal:
> http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
> Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com *
> ckaiser at floodgap.com
> -- #include <std_disclaimer.h>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
11:45 a.m.
Speaking of AUI and hubs etc., any interest in a
10baseT hub with an AUI port?
Allied Telesyn/CentreCom MR820T
I have (two of) the MR820TR, which has all of the above plus 10b2. Great
device, incredibly reliable, running non-stop for years.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- yankee hotel foxtrot. yankee hotel foxtrot. yankee hotel foxtrot. konec. ---
11:44 a.m.
And, like many Allied Telesyn/Telesis products, NO POWER BRICK! An
auto-switching supply is built right into the hub.
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 2:45 PM Cameron Kaiser via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Speaking of
AUI and hubs etc., any interest in a 10baseT hub with an AUI
port?
Allied Telesyn/CentreCom MR820T
I have (two of) the MR820TR, which has all of the above plus 10b2. Great
device, incredibly reliable, running non-stop for years.
--
------------------------------------ personal:
http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com *
ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- yankee hotel foxtrot. yankee hotel foxtrot. yankee hotel foxtrot.
konec. ---
2074
days inactive
2142
days old
29 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
bill.gunshannon＠hotmail.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cctalk＠gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net -
elson＠pico-systems.com -
ethan＠757.org -
mhs.stein＠gmail.com -
nf6x＠nf6x.net -
paulkoning＠comcast.net -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
systems.glitch＠gmail.com