RE: WAN - serial link and RS-232 serial link [7:41670] posted 04/17/2002
- Subject: RE: WAN - serial link and RS-232 serial link [7:41670]
- From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" <cilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:26:08 -0400
I got my numbers from Cisco's Internetworking Terms and Acronyms (not
that Cisco is always right ;-) It says RS-232 was limited to 64 Kbps and
that RS 449 is 2 Mbps.
Here what that document says about RS-530:
Refers to two electrical implementations of EIA/TIA-449: RS-422 (for
balanced transmission) and RS-423 (for unbalanced transmission).
I don't think the actual numbers matter to answer the fellow's question.
The bottom line is that serial doesn't mean slow.
At 07:56 PM 4/16/02, Steve Watson wrote:
>I believe you are incorrect. RS-232 supports up to 128k. RS-449 was the
>successor to 232 but the mechanics and signaling were off so the RS-530
>was born to support up to 2mb and also supported the RS-232
>From: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 7:33 PM
>Subject: Re: WAN - serial link and RS-232 serial link [7:41670]
>WANs (and LANs) use serial communication (one bit at a time). The only
>thing I can think of that uses parallel communication is old-style
>A serial interface can still be very fast. On the WAN side, RS-232 only
>supported speeds up to 64 Kbps. But RS-449 supports speeds up to 2 Mbps.
>Most WAN interfaces support RS-499, which is known as EIA/TIA-499 today.
>And then there's also HSSI which is 52 Mbps, and probably others that I
>can't think of off the top.
>At 07:01 PM 4/16/02, rtiwari wrote:
> >Why WAN connection is called serial link. Is it same like
> >RS-232 serial link. If it's same then at a time we can transmit
> >only one bit.In this case WAN link will be having slower
> >bit transmission.
> >or WAN - serial link and RS-232 serial link are different.
> >Please reply
Message Posted at:
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx