Collision Domain - In POS
-
@WrCombs said in Collision Domain - In POS:
@scottalanmiller said in Collision Domain - In POS:
@WrCombs said in Collision Domain - In POS:
@scottalanmiller said in Collision Domain - In POS:
@WrCombs said in Collision Domain - In POS:
wouldn't it be?
All terminals/Server are on the same ethernet network and have access to the internet (in this site setup) and the Access point is routed to the network that the terminals and servers are on , just plugged into a different port, and also has an internet connection. So.. it would be routed ? or am I just not understanding ?
Am I missing something, is there more to the network, there is a router between the wifi and the server? There can be, but that would be really weird. But certainly can be.
what?
no, it's the fireall with a route put in by the Firewall management company (not us) to have the access point for the tablet connect to the same wired network .
firewall = router. The terms have been synonymous for decades. So okay, it's routed, but outside of the network diagram.
That seems like a big waste to expose the server anyway.
If it matters - It's a hidden Private network.
Basically to connect to it, you need to know ssid, and password.This is not a problem for someone who knows what they are doing.
-
@Dashrender said in Collision Domain - In POS:
@WrCombs said in Collision Domain - In POS:
@scottalanmiller said in Collision Domain - In POS:
@WrCombs said in Collision Domain - In POS:
@scottalanmiller said in Collision Domain - In POS:
@WrCombs said in Collision Domain - In POS:
wouldn't it be?
All terminals/Server are on the same ethernet network and have access to the internet (in this site setup) and the Access point is routed to the network that the terminals and servers are on , just plugged into a different port, and also has an internet connection. So.. it would be routed ? or am I just not understanding ?
Am I missing something, is there more to the network, there is a router between the wifi and the server? There can be, but that would be really weird. But certainly can be.
what?
no, it's the fireall with a route put in by the Firewall management company (not us) to have the access point for the tablet connect to the same wired network .
firewall = router. The terms have been synonymous for decades. So okay, it's routed, but outside of the network diagram.
That seems like a big waste to expose the server anyway.
If it matters - It's a hidden Private network.
Basically to connect to it, you need to know ssid, and password.This is not a problem for someone who knows what they are doing.
If they know what they are doing, it's a calling card. "Someone's hiding this thing, bet it's got something jucy inside!"
-
Great
-
@scottalanmiller said in Collision Domain - In POS:
A Ubiquiti EdgeRouter for example you can choose to make ports switched or routed as needed.
This is only true on the ER-X (Mediatek) devices as they have a switch chip. All other Cavium based devices do not and can merely be "bridged" which is done in software and is definitely not recommended.
-
@manxam said in Collision Domain - In POS:
which is done in software and is definitely not recommended
Why would you say that? Bridging is a perfectly acceptable functionality, built into every decent OS.
It may not be the correct solution for the need. That is extremely common, but that is something determined.
-
@JaredBusch said in Collision Domain - In POS:
@manxam said in Collision Domain - In POS:
which is done in software and is definitely not recommended
Why would you say that? Bridging is a perfectly acceptable functionality, built into every decent OS.
It may not be the correct solution for the need. That is extremely common, but that is something determined.
And it's how all early switches were done. Hardware acceleration is nice, but just like with RAID, over time it falls behind software. Switching hardware is still faster, at scale, but as long as you are hitting line speeds, it doesn't matter at all.
-
@JaredBusch : Because Ubiquiti themselves recommend that this not be done as the CPUs in their offerings suffer greatly without offloading.
Bridging an ER-3 which, from what I can tell, had been their #1 sell for many years hit 100% CPU when bridging 2 interfaces on a 100Mbps connection. This is without any additional NAT or firewall rules.
Unless this is a DSL connection, this essentially makes it useless to most users.@scottalanmiller : I can't recall ever seeing a switch "back in the day" that didn't have ASICs. There are a few newer switches that do, in fact, use CPU rather than ASICs, but they're built using MUCH faster CPUs than what are included in most -- if not all -- routers.
-
@manxam said in Collision Domain - In POS:
I can't recall ever seeing a switch "back in the day" that didn't have ASICs. There are a few newer switches that do, in fact, use CPU rather than ASICs, but they're built using MUCH faster CPUs than what are included in most -- if not all -- routers.
Early days, the ASICs didn't even exist yet. It wasn't a choice, it was all that there was to use software. Then the ASICs came along and obviously dominated. But yes, it always requires throwing more hardware at it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Collision Domain - In POS:
@manxam said in Collision Domain - In POS:
I can't recall ever seeing a switch "back in the day" that didn't have ASICs. There are a few newer switches that do, in fact, use CPU rather than ASICs, but they're built using MUCH faster CPUs than what are included in most -- if not all -- routers.
Early days, the ASICs didn't even exist yet. It wasn't a choice, it was all that there was to use software. Then the ASICs came along and obviously dominated. But yes, it always requires throwing more hardware at it.
How far back are we going here? My first experience with a switch was with Alantec/FORE ATMs (circa early 91/2). These had a RISC SCP processor to run the OS/management functions and custom ASICs for switching. After that, in the more mainstream, came Kalpana and then Cisco. To the best of my knowledge, there were no switches available prior to thicknet (first commercial ethernet).
I'd love more information if you have it available. I love the history of tech.
-
@manxam said in Collision Domain - In POS:
@scottalanmiller said in Collision Domain - In POS:
@manxam said in Collision Domain - In POS:
I can't recall ever seeing a switch "back in the day" that didn't have ASICs. There are a few newer switches that do, in fact, use CPU rather than ASICs, but they're built using MUCH faster CPUs than what are included in most -- if not all -- routers.
Early days, the ASICs didn't even exist yet. It wasn't a choice, it was all that there was to use software. Then the ASICs came along and obviously dominated. But yes, it always requires throwing more hardware at it.
How far back are we going here? My first experience with a switch was with Alantec/FORE ATMs (circa early 91/2). These had a RISC SCP processor to run the OS/management functions and custom ASICs for switching. After that, in the more mainstream, came Kalpana and then Cisco. To the best of my knowledge, there were no switches available prior to thicknet (first commercial ethernet).
I'd love more information if you have it available. I love the history of tech.
Not that far back, still 90s, but a lot of switches were all software in the middling to later 90s as the ASICs weren't broadly available.
But even the very, very first ASICs were / are always based on working software prototypes.
I've never seen a thicknet switch, what a freaking mess that must be.
