Talk:Token Ring

Cabling

Category 4 cable claims this was the cable used for Token ring. If this is true, perhaps it should be mentioned in this article. --Kvng (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the shielded twisted pair cable that token ring cards require have a different impedance than Cat 4 (which I believe is 100 Ohms like cat 3 or telco cable). See http://www.epanorama.net/documents/wiring/twistedpair.html Shjacks45 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Shjacks45, your document also mentions Token Ring in their discussion of Cat 2 and Cat 4. While IBM Type 1 cabling is 150 ohm, that doesn't preclude them from later using 100 ohm in a different cabling system. This edit was part of a series of edits that introduced a bunch of information along with the claim it could run on Cat 6. I think the author made a little mistake and that he meant Cat 4, since it's nice if your cabling exists before you start to use it ;-). I also changed the RJ45 to 8P8C; even though I see IBM documentation using the RJ45 misnomer, I don't think that should be maintained. Digital Brains (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

missing stuff

Some good technical but kind of messy, repeated items about the ring. Most token ring cards (in PCs) that I've encountered were DB9 (look at the picture), and yes if RX and TX were split out you could setup a few computers in an actual ring. Unlike Arcnet however, when a computer was turned off, the network card didn't automatically complete the circuit. MAUs or passive hubs would simply bypass computers that were off or disconnected. Active hubs allowed for "source routing" c.f. it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_routing_(token_ring)‎ or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_route_bridging‎, which sent "unroutable" LLC packets to other network locations. Token Ring networking was SNA (IBM Systems Network Architecture) over DLC (Data Link Control). NETBeui was sometimes used for Applications over Token Ring. Note that most early network cards were 1.) interrupt based, 2.) simplex not duplex (hubs also), 3.) required software to assist the card firmware: 10baseT and 100baseT network cards didn't (couldn't) come close to theoretical bandwidth. CSMA also requires a "random" holdback time before resend, and the resends add to network traffic. I co-managed a 400 person call center, (we had HP 48 port managed hubs at the time) and noted that peak (saturated) network traffic was below 30% of 100mbit/sec (lower with more people on a segment). So, yes Token Ring is not as fast on lightly loaded networks but speed is superior on heavily overloaded networks. See system3x.com/as400_cabling/ re Twinax, it was not Token Ring but a serial device bus for text terminals and printers. Note the use of RJ11 patch panels. Shjacks45 (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, surprisingly no mention of "Source Routing". IBM defined a concept of packet routing at the link level that used a modified header and a broadcast discovery protocol. Bridges would add their addresses and forward. The destination node could select a received packet and reverse the route. It wasn't well thought out, and it's not clear how widely it was deployed in practice. IBM seemed to prefer this approach instead of the spanning tree bridge protocols pioneered by Ethernet bridge vendors. Davesnotthere (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Proper noun

It appears by the capitalization throughout the article that Token Ring is to be considered a proper noun. Seems reasonable. The official title of the article is out of step with this. If there is no controversy about aligning things, I can get the title renamed Token Ring to match. ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree – never liked the lower case version anyway. --Zac67 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Kvng: are you still interested in renaming? I think it would be a good idea, because this article is really about the IBM product, not the network topology, which is covered at Token passing. I was confused by this since IBM isn't even mentioned until the third paragraph, and the first sentence calls it a "technology" rather than a product line. I added a hatnote but I wonder if this could be made more clear in the first sentence. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus. I have requested the move. ~Kvng (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 05:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I've started to adjust all the links here though the token ring redirect left by this move. In most cases, these lead to uncapitalized text that needs to be corrected. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~Kvng (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Strongly and firecely?

Reverted to: During this time, IBM argued strongly that Token Ring LANs were superior to Ethernet, especially under load,[6] but these claims were fiercely debated.[7] I'm pretty confident that this is by no means overstating the case, but admit that I haven't yet found a truly compelling cittation. - Snori (talk)

While you're entitled to your opinion, without a quotation, it didn't happen. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No. The sources do not say "strongly" and "fiercely." Your reasons in the edit summary are not valid. Per WP:FORUM "please do not use Wikipedia for ... Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic." "Anyone who 'was there' would agree with them" is WP:OR. The fact that these words have been there for a decade holds no weight unless you can point me to a Wikipedia policy that says it does. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Technology vs access protocol

I've reverted an edit to the lead that changed "technology" to "access protocol". The source cited says it's a "high-speed communications network". It's not just the access protocol, it's also the cabling, adapters, modulation, network architecture, etc. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)