Why 96 bits of silent time?
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by on November 21, 2006, 8:21 am
Please log in for more thread options I know that in Ethernet, we must wait for 96 bit times of silent time before starting to send a frame. But why 96 bit times? Is there any specific reason for this number? | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Robert Redelmeier on November 21, 2006, 10:48 am
Please log in for more thread options typingcat@gmail.com wrote in part: Sounds like homework! We don't do that around here, but I'll give you a _big_ hint: ethernet originally was shared medium [coax, aka yellow garden hose] of carefully limited overall length. -- Robert | ||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Why 96 bits of silent time? | November 21, 2006, 8:21 am |
| obtaining port bits per second data from switch | August 29, 2006, 12:20 pm |
| Question about 802.3 clause 24 - Transimit/Transmit-Bits state diagram | September 11, 2007, 9:18 pm |
| Link Up Time | March 14, 2006, 12:24 pm |
| Network Time (Newbie Q) | October 19, 2004, 10:45 am |
| LAN cabling : The right time for beginning | February 1, 2006, 5:24 am |
| STP and RSTP congergence time | May 9, 2008, 12:10 pm |
| Ethernet auto-negotiate time | September 11, 2004, 10:19 pm |
| Why CSMA/CD is not suitable for real time applications?? | January 18, 2005, 4:06 am |
| Re: Why CSMA/CD is not suitable for real time applications?? | January 22, 2005, 4:49 pm |
| Shortest ethernet frame time = 5.76uS? | September 9, 2008, 4:55 pm |
| Maximum Auto-Negotiation Time on Twisted-Pair Gigabit Ethernet | June 19, 2008, 8:21 am |
> silent time before starting to send a frame. But why 96
> bit times? Is there any specific reason for this number?