Re: [RE] What's wrong with FireWire?
Scott,
>> Maybe what they want is a new 1394 PHY for Cat-5.
1) 1394 over 1Gb Cat-5, complete with autonegotiation,
has already been done; you can contact Michael Teener
for details. I believe its ready for Sponsor Ballot.
2) I have heard no one, in the pre-studyGroup presentations,
reflector traffic, or preposed 802.3 study group material.
That is not my desire nor I have I seen it advocated
by the remainder of the contributors.
DVJ
David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
+1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Scott Simon
>> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 10:57 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: [RE] What's wrong with FireWire?
>>
>>
>> Funny,
>>
>> I was thinking the same thing. Maybe what they want is a new
>> 1394 PHY for Cat-5.
>>
>> -=Scott
>>
>> Hugh Barrass wrote:
>> > All,
>> >
>> > So far there has been some discussion on the subject of "what's wrong
>> > with Ethernet" for the home network and, as far as I can see it, the
>> > main response seems to be "it's not FireWire." So, could someone with
>> > expertise in this field summarize what the deficiencies are with IEEE
>> > 1394 that require it to be replaced with an enhanced IEEE 802.3?
>> >
>> > It strikes me that the problem of bridging:
>> >
>> > <-- IEEE 1394 -->...<-- IEEE 802.3 -->...<-- IEEE 1394 -->
>> >
>> > would be best served by:
>> >
>> > <-- IEEE 1394 -->...<-- IEEE 1394 -->...<-- IEEE 1394 -->
>> >
>> > Hugh.
>> >
>>