home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
- Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!sgi!rhyolite!vjs
- From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
- Subject: Re: FAQ: Or would be, if there was one : -D
- Message-ID: <s3d4su4@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com>
- Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc. Mountain View, CA
- References: <ru6181s@sgi.sgi.com> <Bx72JE.DM3@nic.umass.edu> <1992Nov7.061818.49847@ccvax.ucd.ie>
- Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:16:40 GMT
- Lines: 19
-
- In article <1992Nov7.061818.49847@ccvax.ucd.ie>, ctoomey@ccvax.ucd.ie writes:
- > ....
- > Vernon Schryver from SGI points out
- >that in my case (a small number of hosts on a small segment) I can actually use
- > smaller lengths of cable....
-
-
- Are you sure that wasn't someone else? Maybe Rob Warnock?
-
- Believe it or not, I sometimes keep quiet about things I'm not sure
- about and am too lazy to look up.
-
- Personally, I wouldn't violate the rules. Cable is too cheap compared
- to the future costs of figuring out and fixing things should the small
- network gradually become not so small and just as gradually not so
- useful.
-
-
- vjs
-