 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| Re: It's happening with hubs, switches, and routers so I don't think it's that. by Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS) 01/10/2012, 4:33pm PST | ||||
 |
 |
|||
Worm wrote: Wrong. You get circular routing if you have two routers both using the same network. If all three are, you have "triangle routing" and so on. All of the routers need to be on different networks; if they use 10.x.y.z then every router must have a different number for X from all of the others. If they use 192.168.x.y, same thing, each of the X networks they use must be unique for your entire network so they route to each other correctly. If more than one is on the same subnet, they don't know who gets the packets even if every device on each network is using different endpoints, e.g. if one isusing 192.168.1. 20 through .30 and the other is using 192.168.1. 100 through 199, the routers (at least residential class ones) can't route to less than a /24 (the last 8 bits). Which is reasonable given you're dealing with a $20 residential router, normally routing by the last 8 bits is okay. Given a $1000 Cisco router, it can handle splitting two networks at /28 and routing by the last 4 bits. I'm pretty sure it's a combination of my 360's network interface being a piece of shit and maybe this new switch being a piece of shit. Also wouldn't an ethernet splitter only let me use one device at a time? Actually, that's the beauty of the Ethernet cards and the Internet Protocol, if there's a collision, each device will do a random back off in miliseconds before retrying, which should ensure that someone gets use of the channel. Look, I have three machines connected to one monitor and keyboard/mouse through a KVM, all of them running on wireless adapters, which means they're all probably using channel 6, and yet I can have one machine downloading a YouTube clip through YouTubeDownloader while I'm on a web site like this on my other computer, and there's no problem. I worked in an office for two years where both machines shared the same incoming network cable with a splitter and we had no problem. Maybe you don't remember or weren't around a few decades ago when we used to use coax similar to cable TV cable, it was called "Token Ring" and it allowed everyone to have an opportunity to talk on the same wire connected in a circle or with end caps. Ethernet got so much easier and cheaper to use it became the standard. I mean, I'm using Tenda (a Chinese maker of) wireless USB adapters, $9 each, and they work fine. Coincidentally they're running into a Tenda wireless router and there's no problem. Well, actually, one of my adapters is an older SMC adapter, and it works fine too; everybody follows the rules for 11-G (50mb) or 11-N (100mb) wireless and they all seem to work okay and play together nicely. So if I'm getting okay results with cheap $9 adapters (that's retail price purchased quantity one) then anything in the machine should be better, in fact, usually wired networking is more resilient to failure than wired ones; I've had routers where the wireless part failed but the wired part continued flawlessly. Networking is supposed to allow multiple users on the same wire, or in the case of wireless, same frequency. Packets can be mixed so that some of mine come between some of yours, and going upband to the router, it is able to handle multiple senders on the same wire and separate their packets just fine. If they notice a collision the one or ones that noticed the error is supposed to back off and retry the transmission. With UDP, they don't bother, they just allow the packets to be lost, that's why on a heavily loaded network you get dropped audio on a VOIP telephone call or you get spotty television. With TCP, each packet is guaranteed so the sender knows to resend if a packet is lost. UDP sacrifices reliability for speed, while TCP sacrifices speed for reliability; each provides whichever trade-off you are willing to accept. But the key to the whole thing is still collision detection and backoff/retry which I believe is done automatically in hardware. |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
I have one ethernet cable and want to hook up my PC and 360 to it. by 12/30/2011, 12:49am PST  Re: I have one ethernet cable and want to hook up my PC and 360 to it. by 12/30/2011, 11:11am PST Using a proper switch just makes the 360 disconnect immediately NT by 01/08/2012, 11:28pm PST Diagram this shit NT by 01/09/2012, 12:33am PST I think I just got a bad switch, it was like 12 bucks by 01/09/2012, 2:12am PST You know, you can buy a 3 foot cable for under 6 bucks. Or less on eBay NT by 01/09/2012, 7:54am PST I'm like two floors away from the router if doing another run was easy NT by 01/09/2012, 9:41am PST Probably DHCP circular routing by 01/09/2012, 8:21am PST It's happening with hubs, switches, and routers so I don't think it's that. by 01/09/2012, 9:48am PST Re: It's happening with hubs, switches, and routers so I don't think it's that. by 01/10/2012, 4:33pm PST |
