[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:01:53 +0000 Peter Walker <peter.walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Grant Sewell wrote: > > >If your router has a built-in switch, then it is possible that you'd need a > >cross-over cable to go between it and another switch. It depends on whether the > >router manufacturer has "stuck to the rules" or not. Always handy to have both > >cables around, just in case! > > > > Don't most modern switches autodetect the cable anyway. So you should be > able to use either. Older switches used to have a specific port marked > for uplink. > > Pete Some switches do, others do not. If a switch claims to be MDIx compatible, then it will. However, since even brand-spanking new switches can be bought that *don't* have this feature, why not just get into the good habit of doing it properly anyway? It's not hard to remember. And the old "uplink" thing was a bit of a misnomer too... a port marked as uplink could use a straight-through cable to attach to another switch so you don't have to have the hassle of keeping/making a separate cable. However, the real beauty of the "uplink"ability was that the switches connected together via uplink would not bother to store the MAC addresses of eachother's hosts. If you connected them together on an ordinary port (ie non-uplink) using a cross-over cable then they'd learn all the MAC addresses associated with that port. --Grant. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe. FAQ: www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html