From davidb at xware.cx Tue Jul 16 10:00:23 2002 From: davidb at xware.cx (David Basden) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:25 2004 Subject: [tech] Door Message-ID: <20020716020023.GA20639@ritsuko.xware.cx> Door isn't dispensing. I reset the modem and blackbox to no avail. Any suggestions? David From mtearle at tearle.com Tue Jul 16 10:07:10 2002 From: mtearle at tearle.com (Mark Tearle) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:27 2004 Subject: [tech] Door In-Reply-To: <20020716020023.GA20639@ritsuko.xware.cx> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, David Basden wrote: > Subject: [tech] Door > > Door isn't dispensing. I reset the modem and blackbox to no avail. > > Any suggestions? > > David a) Power cycle the coke machine b) Cabling problem? The door cabling is not the most happy of things. Yours Mark -- Mark Tearle - mark@tearle.com "Happiness is not a lifestyle, happiness is" - greeting card linux.conf.au 2003 - The Australian Linux Technical Conference http://conf.linux.org.au/ 22nd - 25th January 2003 in Perth From nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Mon Jul 22 13:09:23 2002 From: nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Nick Bannon) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:27 2004 Subject: [tech] Old monitors, parts, plotter Message-ID: <20020722130923.A142533@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> We got some 14" monitors recently... do we still have plenty of them? ERG in Balcatta is cleaning out a building and there's things headed for the dumpster. It's not the most amazing haul, but perhaps I can get people used to the donation idea. ::-) There's about 32 monitors and half that volume again of extra oddments - about five unknown condition PCs, etc. I'll see if Computer Angels will take the bulk of it, but I imagine we can have what we want. There's an A0 pen plotter if anyone wants it... Nick. -- Nick Bannon | "I made this letter longer than usual because nick-sig@rcpt.to | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal http://linux.conf.au/ | Australian Linux Technical Conference, 2003 From ian at mckellar.org Sat Jul 27 02:57:43 2002 From: ian at mckellar.org (Ian McKellar) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:28 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: Excessive Bandwidth Use In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020726164849.00a67ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020726164849.00a67ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1027709863.6210.101920.camel@mouse.danger.com> On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 01:50, I am the LinuxAlien wrote: > I am thinking of Joining UCC and was wondering if downloading the latest > Debian ISOs and burning them was considered as excess bandwidth use? No, given that we charge for downloads from outside of PARNET (or something like that - I'm kind of out of the loop). On the other hand the Debian ISOs (well, i386 anyway) are I believe available in our free traffic area so thats not likely to be excessive at all. The "no excessive traffic" provision is because we don't want people hosting sites that will get a lot of traffic on our servers - we pay for the traffic and we have no way of billing people for web pages served (and really, we don't want to). Ian -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/tech/attachments/20020726/004ce18f/attachment.pgp From grahame at azale.net Sat Jul 27 04:37:55 2002 From: grahame at azale.net (Grahame Bowland) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:28 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: Excessive Bandwidth Use In-Reply-To: <1027709863.6210.101920.camel@mouse.danger.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020726164849.00a67ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <1027709863.6210.101920.camel@mouse.danger.com> Message-ID: <200207270438.10292.grahame@azale.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 02:57 am, Ian McKellar wrote: > On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 01:50, I am the LinuxAlien wrote: > > I am thinking of Joining UCC and was wondering if downloading the latest > > Debian ISOs and burning them was considered as excess bandwidth use? > > No, given that we charge for downloads from outside of PARNET (or > something like that - I'm kind of out of the loop). On the other hand > the Debian ISOs (well, i386 anyway) are I believe available in our free > traffic area so thats not likely to be excessive at all. The "no > excessive traffic" provision is because we don't want people hosting > sites that will get a lot of traffic on our servers - we pay for the > traffic and we have no way of billing people for web pages served (and > really, we don't want to). Especially given that they can be grabbed at ftp://ftp.uwa.edu.au/mirrors/debian-cd :-) - -- Grahame Bowland / "If computers get too powerful, we can organise them / into a committee -- that will do them in" - Bradley -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9QbMuN7eIygKWKbARAvEKAJ9x9c0kW9JGMT7l2tw6xLD0tCdcrgCfeOa8 E8UtYp3F7eV8sP7T3G4GlVU= =xAqN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From trent at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Sat Jul 27 16:47:15 2002 From: trent at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Trent Lloyd) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:28 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub Message-ID: <20020727084715.GA28109@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Hello, I just recripmed the small patch cable going from patch-8 into port 8 on the hub. It had a break somewhere and was working dodgily, works all good now The wire order isnt standard but that wasnt my fault, the other end was weird so i just matched it ;p Oh and its pluged into the Mac 'enterprise' which is next to Mulder. -- Trent From proxy at zdlcomputing.com Sat Jul 27 19:22:13 2002 From: proxy at zdlcomputing.com (proXy) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:29 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub In-Reply-To: <20020727084715.GA28109@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20020727084715.GA28109@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <1027768933.1400.3.camel@Epoch> On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 16:47, Trent Lloyd wrote: > Oh and its pluged into the Mac 'enterprise' which is next to Mulder. That would explain why enterprise wasn't pinging and why it was passed out on our diff of the nmap with and without the mirrorball. I had wondered what enterprise was. --proXy -- http://davyd.ucc.asn.au/ linux.conf.au Perth 2003 PGP Fingerprint 08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118 C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/tech/attachments/20020727/339e67a8/attachment.pgp From dunc-mail-1317DF9 at rcpt.to Mon Jul 29 10:03:14 2002 From: dunc-mail-1317DF9 at rcpt.to (Duncan Sargeant) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:29 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub In-Reply-To: <20020727084715.GA28109@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20020727084715.GA28109@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20020729020314.GD13792@circe.rcpt.to> Trent Lloyd wrote on Sat July 27, at 16:47 +0800: > I just recripmed the small patch cable going from patch-8 into port > 8 on the hub. It had a break somewhere and was working dodgily, > works all good now > > The wire order isnt standard but that wasnt my fault, the other end > was weird so i just matched it ;p That's to be expected :-) When we wired up the UCC with cat5, we didn't bother with any order, just crimped one end and then made sure the other matched it. ,dunc From bongus at rainbow.lorikeet.id.au Mon Jul 29 10:15:55 2002 From: bongus at rainbow.lorikeet.id.au (Angus Stewart) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:29 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub References: <20020727084715.GA28109@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20020729020314.GD13792@circe.rcpt.to> Message-ID: <3D44A55B.1030806@rainbow.lorikeet.id.au> Duncan Sargeant wrote: > That's to be expected :-) When we wired up the UCC with cat5, we didn't > bother with any order, just crimped one end and then made sure the other > matched it. giving you UUP.... Unshielded Untwisted Pairs - they're meant to be twisted for a reason, right? :D From dichro-evo at rcpt.to Mon Jul 29 10:17:42 2002 From: dichro-evo at rcpt.to (Mikolaj J. Habryn) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:29 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub In-Reply-To: <3D44A55B.1030806@rainbow.lorikeet.id.au> References: <20020727084715.GA28109@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20020729020314.GD13792@circe.rcpt.to> <3D44A55B.1030806@rainbow.lorikeet.id.au> Message-ID: <1027909062.6465.35.camel@orthos> On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 12:15, Angus Stewart wrote: > giving you UUP.... Unshielded Untwisted Pairs - they're meant to be > twisted for a reason, right? :D You know, it took me quite a while to make that mental leap. It was just so much easier to make any given TP just terminate on adjacent pins. I wonder how many of my UUP cables are still holding up backbone traffic at A Certain Large WA ISP. m. From dunc-mail-1317DF9 at rcpt.to Mon Jul 29 10:18:15 2002 From: dunc-mail-1317DF9 at rcpt.to (Duncan Sargeant) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:29 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub In-Reply-To: <3D44A55B.1030806@rainbow.lorikeet.id.au> References: <20020727084715.GA28109@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20020729020314.GD13792@circe.rcpt.to> <3D44A55B.1030806@rainbow.lorikeet.id.au> Message-ID: <20020729021815.GG13792@circe.rcpt.to> Angus Stewart wrote on Mon July 29, at 10:15 +0800: > >That's to be expected :-) When we wired up the UCC with cat5, we didn't > >bother with any order, just crimped one end and then made sure the other > >matched it. > > giving you UUP.... Unshielded Untwisted Pairs - they're meant to be > twisted for a reason, right? :D Am I missing something here? They were still twisted ... ,dunc From dunc-mail-1317DF9 at rcpt.to Mon Jul 29 10:28:45 2002 From: dunc-mail-1317DF9 at rcpt.to (Duncan Sargeant) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:30 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub In-Reply-To: <1027909062.6465.35.camel@orthos> References: <20020727084715.GA28109@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20020729020314.GD13792@circe.rcpt.to> <3D44A55B.1030806@rainbow.lorikeet.id.au> <1027909062.6465.35.camel@orthos> Message-ID: <20020729022845.GH13792@circe.rcpt.to> Mikolaj J. Habryn wrote on Mon July 29, at 12:17 +1000: > On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 12:15, Angus Stewart wrote: > > giving you UUP.... Unshielded Untwisted Pairs - they're meant to be > > twisted for a reason, right? :D > > You know, it took me quite a while to make that mental leap. It was just > so much easier to make any given TP just terminate on adjacent pins. I only just made the mental connection now. Doh! ,dunc From bongus at rainbow.lorikeet.id.au Mon Jul 29 10:36:25 2002 From: bongus at rainbow.lorikeet.id.au (Angus Stewart) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:30 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub References: <20020727084715.GA28109@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20020729020314.GD13792@circe.rcpt.to> <3D44A55B.1030806@rainbow.lorikeet.id.au> <20020729021815.GG13792@circe.rcpt.to> Message-ID: <3D44AA29.7060203@rainbow.lorikeet.id.au> Duncan Sargeant wrote: > Am I missing something here? They were still twisted ... It's been too long since EE lectures, but isn't it supposed to reduce crosstalk or is it just for external interference? twisting the +ve TX with +ve RX just sounds wrong. :) Mikolaj J. Habryn wrote: > You know, it took me quite a while to make that mental leap. It was just > so much easier to make any given TP just terminate on adjacent pins. I > wonder how many of my UUP cables are still holding up backbone traffic > at A Certain Large WA ISP. and then you made a crossover cable and had to remember the order! :) From david at luyer.net Mon Jul 29 10:45:30 2002 From: david at luyer.net (David Luyer) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:30 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub In-Reply-To: <3D44AA29.7060203@rainbow.lorikeet.id.au> Message-ID: <000e01c236aa$00dcdd50$638317d2@pacific.net.au> > and then you made a crossover cable and had to remember the order! :) No, just upgrade to the NetGear switches which autosense cables :-) When NetGear were developing GigE switches which use all 4 pair they realised that nobody had any idea what a GigE crossover should look like, all the cables ever built would be different, and they may as well just autosense which wire goes to which wire. Then they realised how cheap and convenient it actually was to just make all ethernet connections between their switches just work, and were intending to, or probably have by now, backport it to their 10/100Mbps switches. David. From dichro-evo at rcpt.to Mon Jul 29 11:00:18 2002 From: dichro-evo at rcpt.to (Mikolaj J. Habryn) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:30 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub In-Reply-To: <000e01c236aa$00dcdd50$638317d2@pacific.net.au> References: <000e01c236aa$00dcdd50$638317d2@pacific.net.au> Message-ID: <1027911618.6430.49.camel@orthos> On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 12:45, David Luyer wrote: > well just autosense which wire goes to which wire. Then they realised > how cheap and convenient it actually was to just make all ethernet > connections between their switches just work, and were intending to, > or probably have by now, backport it to their 10/100Mbps switches. Hmm. So what happens when you connect a NetGear to any other switch brand and it starts wiggling kilovolts of morse code across the wires to work out which ones are actually twisted together? :) m. From david at luyer.net Mon Jul 29 11:13:02 2002 From: david at luyer.net (David Luyer) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:30 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub In-Reply-To: <1027911618.6430.49.camel@orthos> Message-ID: <001b01c236ad$d9a13ca0$638317d2@pacific.net.au> Mikolaj wrote: > On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 12:45, David Luyer wrote: > > well just autosense which wire goes to which wire. Then > they realised > > how cheap and convenient it actually was to just make all ethernet > > connections between their switches just work, and were intending to, > > or probably have by now, backport it to their 10/100Mbps switches. > > Hmm. So what happens when you connect a NetGear to any other switch > brand and it starts wiggling kilovolts of morse code across > the wires to > work out which ones are actually twisted together? :) I'd hope the same as what happens when you connect a Cisco Powered Patch Panel to a non-capable end device - absolutely nothing of interest. I wonder how many assumptions it works on though - it's probably quite hard to work out which wires are actually twisted together, so it probably just tries to work out which wire is which wire, and then assumes a sane set are actual pairs. Or maybe pairs are easier to identify than I'd expect (send signal down core A, watch for most affected core, that's the pair - could work). David. -- David Luyer Phone: +61 3 9674 7525 Network Development Manager P A C I F I C Fax: +61 3 9699 8693 Pacific Internet (Australia) I N T E R N E T Mobile: +61 4 1111 BYTE http://www.pacific.net.au/ NASDAQ: PCNTF From fryers at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Tue Jul 30 01:07:26 2002 From: fryers at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Simon Fryer) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:31 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub In-Reply-To: <20020729020314.GD13792@circe.rcpt.to> References: <20020727084715.GA28109@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20020729020314.GD13792@circe.rcpt.to> Message-ID: <20020730010726.F39913@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Bingle > A while ago Duncan Sargeant tapped: > Trent Lloyd wrote on Sat July 27, at 16:47 +0800: > > I just recripmed the small patch cable going from patch-8 into port > > 8 on the hub. It had a break somewhere and was working dodgily, > > works all good now > > > > The wire order isnt standard but that wasnt my fault, the other end > > was weird so i just matched it ;p > > That's to be expected :-) When we wired up the UCC with cat5, we didn't > bother with any order, just crimped one end and then made sure the other > matched it. Bzzt. We did bother. All the krone termination blocks we used have the appropriate wire colours labled on the back. This made wiring up the blocks incorrectly (and have them work) more trouble that it is would have been worth. [MTL] went a long way to try and work out which standard should be used for the colours on the patch cables. The document showing how to wire up patch cables correctly was on the notice board for a long time. I am not sure where it is now. Maybe [MTL] can provide a URL or something to the document. Other unknown and little implemented standards at UCC include the following: * Certain cables with RJ45's where initially built for axalotle. These will definatly look wrong. * Cross over cables typically have a red marking (cable tie or something) to indicate this. * A number of cables exist that where used to try out token ring. These will also look wrong. * UCC typically buys the really cheap RJ45's and these don't often crimp reliably. I found an ISA slot cover and a hammer a reliable solution to fix this problem. * People at UCC tend to be lazy setting equipment up. This leads to a number of badly crimped patch cables leading to all sorts of problems. Simon -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Well, an engineer is not concerned with the truth; that is left to philosophers and theologians: the prime concern of an engineer is the utility of the final product." Lectures on the Electrical Properties of Materials, L.Solymar, D.Walsh From dunc-mail-1317DFA at rcpt.to Tue Jul 30 09:45:57 2002 From: dunc-mail-1317DFA at rcpt.to (Duncan Sargeant) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:31 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub In-Reply-To: <20020730010726.F39913@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20020727084715.GA28109@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20020729020314.GD13792@circe.rcpt.to> <20020730010726.F39913@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20020730014557.GA14440@circe.rcpt.to> Simon Fryer wrote on Tue July 30, at 01:07 +0800: > > A while ago Duncan Sargeant tapped: > > That's to be expected :-) When we wired up the UCC with cat5, we didn't > > bother with any order, just crimped one end and then made sure the other > > matched it. > > Bzzt. We did bother. All the krone termination blocks we used have the > appropriate wire colours labled on the back. This made wiring up the > blocks incorrectly (and have them work) more trouble that it is would have > been worth. Ah yes, actually it was just the leads from the wall sockets to the devices that were random-order crimped. ,dunc From adrian at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Tue Jul 30 14:30:12 2002 From: adrian at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Adrian Chadd) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:25:31 2004 Subject: [tech] CAT5 on patch port 8 to hub In-Reply-To: <000e01c236aa$00dcdd50$638317d2@pacific.net.au> References: <3D44AA29.7060203@rainbow.lorikeet.id.au> <000e01c236aa$00dcdd50$638317d2@pacific.net.au> Message-ID: <20020730143012.K154520@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Mon, Jul 29, 2002, David Luyer wrote: > > > and then you made a crossover cable and had to remember the order! :) > > No, just upgrade to the NetGear switches which autosense cables :-) > > When NetGear were developing GigE switches which use all 4 pair they > realised that nobody had any idea what a GigE crossover should look > like, all the cables ever built would be different, and they may as > well just autosense which wire goes to which wire. Then they realised > how cheap and convenient it actually was to just make all ethernet > connections between their switches just work, and were intending to, > or probably have by now, backport it to their 10/100Mbps switches. .. or, just use late-model macs, where their ethernet ports are crossover-autosensing. God, it makes life much easier. Adrian