Ethernet: The Definitive Guide

Errata for Ethernet: The Definitive Guide

Submit your own errata for this product.


The errata list is a list of errors and their corrections that were found after the product was released. If the error was corrected in a later version or reprint the date of the correction will be displayed in the column titled "Date Corrected".

The following errata were submitted by our customers and approved as valid errors by the author or editor.

Color Key: Serious Technical Mistake Minor Technical Mistake Language or formatting error Typo Question Note Update



Version Location Description Submitted By Date Submitted Date Corrected
Printed
Page xix
The last line on the page did read

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/ethernet Now reads: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9781565926608

Anonymous    May 01, 2000
Printed
Page xx
The second line of the first paragraph in the Acknowledgments section

"I would like to thank the inventor of Ethernet..." NOW READS: "I would like to thank the inventors of Ethernet..."

Anonymous    Mar 01, 2004
Printed
Page 7
Sidebar, paragraph 1, line 2

change "1998" to "2000" Paragraph 2 should read: "This edition contains 1,515 pages 'incorporating IEEE Std 802.3, 1998 Edition, IEEE Std 802.3ac-1998, IEEE Std 802.3ab-1999, and 802.3ad- 2000.'"

Note from the Author or Editor:
Fixed in 2nd edition ms with ref to most recent edition

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 8
Table 1-1

10BASE2 is listed here as 802.3a-1985 and in 802.3, 2000 Edition, as 802.3a- 1988." Which date is correct?

Note from the Author or Editor:
1988 is correct - fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 10
paragraph 2, line 3

"by the International Organization for Standardization, whose initials (derived from it's French name), are ISO." NOW READS: "by the International Organization for Standardization, whose initials (derived from the Greek "isos," meaning equal), are ISO."

Anonymous    Mar 01, 2005
Printed
Page 13
Paragraph 4, lines 3-4

delete "or not"

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 16
FOIRL, line 4

FOIRL is listed here as being published in 1989 but in 802.3, 2000 Edition, as 802.3d-1987. Which date is correct?

Note from the Author or Editor:
1987 is correct - fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 19
first sentence of the second paragraph

The first sentence of the second paragraph did read: "Metcalfe understood..." Now reads: "Bob Metcalfe understood..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 22
third line of the first paragraph

The third line of the first paragraph did read: "...two devices connected to a full-duplex Ethernet media system to simultaneously..." Now reads: "...two devices connected over a full-duplex link to simultaneously..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 22
last line of the last paragraph

The last line of the last paragraph did read: "...standard, probably operating at 10 Gbps, within..." Now reads: "...standard operating at 10 Gpbs within..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 24
3rd bullet

In the 3rd bullet, "consists" HAS BEEN CHANGED to "consist".

Anonymous    Mar 01, 2004
Printed
Page 32
Lines 5-6 of the fourth paragraph

Lines 5-6 of the fourth paragraph did read: "Each port of a repeater hub links individual Ethernet media segments together..." Now reads: "Each port of a repeater hub links an individual Ethernet media segment to others..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 33
first line of the second paragraph

The first line of the second paragraph did read: "...the individual ports combine segments..." Now reads: "...the ports combine segments..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 45
first sentence of the fourth paragraph

The first sentence of the fourth paragraph did read: "...numerically equal to or less than the maximum untagged frame size in octets of 1518 (decimal)..." Now reads: "...numerically less than or equal to 1500 (decimal)..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 45
first sentence of the last paragraph

This footnote has been added to the first sentence of the last paragraph: "The range of 1,501 to 1,535 was intentionally left undefined in the standard."

Anonymous    Jun 01, 2001
Printed
Page 48
item 1, lines 4 and 6

change "each frame" to "successive frames" change "between frame reception" to "between frame receptions"

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 50
3rd paragraph, line 1

change "length" to "lengths"

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 56
2nd paragraph, lines 1-2

change "the duplex configuration" to "the duplex configurations"

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 56
3rd paragraph, lines 2-3

change "detects collision" to "detects a collision"

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 58
5th paragraph, line 6

change "value of k (and hence, the range of the number r) exponentially increasing for the..." to "value of k increasing (and hence, the range of the number r exponentially increasing) for the..."

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 58
last paragraph on page 58

The final paragraph on page 58 states: "If the frame continues to encounter collisions after 16 retries, the interface will give up." In actuality, it is the 16th *attempt* that is the final allowable attempt, which is the 15th *retry*. Stating that 16 retries are allowed is equivalent to stating that 17 total attempts are allowed, which is not the case.

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 63
Figure 3-3

change "Frame start limit" to "Frame Burst Limit"

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 78
first line of the first paragraph

The first line of the first paragraph did read: "...gap between each frame." Now reads: "...gap between successive frames."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 83
2nd full paragraph, line 3

change "which is 46 bytes" to "which contains 46 bytes in the data field"

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 83
fourth line of the fourth paragraph

The fourth line of the fourth paragraph did read: "...with this opcode in the first byte of the data field..." Now reads: "...with this opcode in the first two bytes of the data field..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 84
Figure 4-2

The MAC address in Figure 4-2 "PAUSE frame" did read: "01-08-C2-00-00-01" Now reads: "01-80-C2-00-00-01"

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 88
1st paragraph under "FLP Operation," line 2

change "between each burst" to "between successive bursts"

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 101
The third line of the second paragraph used to read:

"...that the Ethernet interface does not have..." It now reads: "...that the Ethernet interface controller does not have..."

Anonymous    Jun 01, 2001
Printed
Page 110
The fifth line 5 of the first paragraph used to read

"...to the Ethernet interface..." It now reads: "...to the Ethernet interface controller..."

Anonymous    Jun 01, 2001
Printed
Page 113
second to last line of the last paragraph

The second to last line of the last paragraph did read: "...male jackscrews that connect..." Now reads: "...male jack screws that connect..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 113
last line on the page

The last line on the page did read: "...of 0.5 meters..." Now reads: "...of 0.5 meter..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 118
3rd paragraph

You describe the drawback to Manchester encoding as: "In other words, a 10 Mbps stream of all ones or all zeroes results in a Manchester encoded signaling rate of 20 MHz on the cable." This passage seems to indicate that a stream of all ones or all zeroes results in a 20 MHz signal on the media. If this is the case, I believe this statement is wrong. The stream of all ones or all zeroes would be represented by a 10 MHz square wave signal. A stream of alternating ones and zeroes (good case) would be represented by a 5 MHz square wave signal. This suggest a minimum signal frequency of 5 MHz and a maximum frequency of 10 MHz on the cable using the Manchester encoding scheme. When a Manchester encoding scheme is used, half the bandwidth is wasted because it takes two transitions to represent one bit. This is something you may wish to state in the book. To see this, consider a original clock signal and a data signal representation. If this was your interface, the clock would be a 10 MHz signal and the data signal would never be higher than 5 MHz (alternating ones and zeroes). When this is converted to a Manchester encoding scheme, the Manchester signal line represents the alternating ones and zeroes as a 5 MHz signal, thus no change. However, the stream of all ones or all zeroes results in a 10 MHz signal, a big change. Thus the Manchester encoding scheme caused a data line that never went higher than 5 MHz to be represented by a new signal line that will never go higher than 10 MHz. Thus double frequency representation. If you look at figure 6-8 on page 119, this figure supports my argument. On the 001 pattern, the time between the first zeroes represented by rising edge signals is 100 nsec. This suggest a 100 nsec time period thus 10 MHz. Sorry to be so anile, but I thought this was an important point.

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 127
2nd paragraph, line 1

change "The transmit and receive data signals..." to "The transmit or receive data signals..."

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 127-128

The last sentence in the last paragraph beginning on page 127 has been deleted.

Anonymous    Jun 01, 2001
Printed
Page 138
1st full paragraph, last line

change "currents" to "potentials"

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 152
Line 4 of the 3rd paragraph

Under "Fiber Optic Cable" section there is the following sentence: "The wavelength of light used on a 100BASE-TX ...". "100Base-TX should be changed to "100Base-FX"

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 167
first section heading

Minor formatting: Physical line signaling Is this line supposed to be in the bigger size type? The heading is 12.2.1, but the type size is the one for #.#.#.#

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 171
Last Paragraph

Text reads "providing a network with a total maximum cable diameter of 200 meters between stations" Diameter should be "Distance"

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 172
Table 12-1

Maximum segment length in feet for 1000BASE-SX was incorrectly listed as "220 m (1,351 feet)". NOW READS: "220 m (721.78 feet)".

Anonymous    Mar 01, 2004
Printed
Page 173
Bottom of page the * foot note

The Cisco catalyst 3500 XL switch appears to make use of a proprietary two port repeater built into a copper GBIC. This allows daisy chaining several switches using 1000-BASE-?? 1/2 duplex mode of operation. The interconnect cable may be proprietary. From the Cisco web site: GigaStack GBIC delivers a low-cost, independent stack bus with a 1 Gbps forwarding bandwidth in a daisy-chain configuration, with up to nine Catalyst 3500 XL or gigabit-enabled Catalyst 2900 series XL switches or a 2 Gbps forwarding rate in a point-to-point configuration

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 177
1st line

change "e.g." to "i.e."

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 182
Table 13-2

In Table 13-2, the values should be aligned on the decimal points.

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 182
Table 13-2

In Table 13-2, the Max left end, middle segment, and right end enties for "Excess AUI" should read 4.92, not 4.88.

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 182
Table 13-2

Excess AUI, according to 802.3 Clause 7.4.3.7, can delay .1028 BT/m. This is 4.93 BT / 48. m; v/c = .6485. (But everything should be rounded to 1 bit time, or at most .1 bit time. AUI is so short, its RT delay/m could be rounded to .1 BT.)

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 182
Table 13-2

Considering the margin of 0 to 5 bits, round to the nearest bit. Segment Round-Trip Delay Values in Bit Times Left Middle Right RT Max End Segment End Delay/ Segment Length Type (m) Base Max Base Max Base Max meter v/c ____________________________________________________________________ 10BASE-FL 2000 12 212 34 234 157 357 .100 .667 FOIRL 1000 8 108 29 129 152 252 .100 .667 10BASE5 500 12 55 47 90 170 213 .087 .770 10BASE2 185 12 31 47 65 170 188 .103 .650 10BASE-T 100 15 27 42 53 165 176 .114 .585 Excess AUI 48 0 5 0 5 0 5 .103 .650 RT delay/m (100.ns bit times/m) = 2 / [(v/c)*(30.0 m/100.ns)] Include the right-hand column and that last equation to help readers compute their own. Listing longest-to-shortest as above helps keep the numbers in perspective. This table is comprehensible and useful. The original's appearance warns, "Don't go here."

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 182
Table 13-2

For left and right ends, tabulate only _excess_ delay beyond the minima (7.75 and 152 bit times, respectively). Maximum allowed path excess delay becomes 415 bit times (preferably 410). The comparison of left- to right- direction paths becomes far easier! (Try it.) Round to 0 decimal point; align on decimal. List longest-to-shortest. Say "N/A" for "Excess AUI Base." Segment Excess Delay Values (bit times) RT max. network diameter Segment Left End Mid R. End delay including AUI (m) Type Base Max B. Max B. Max /m v/c (if net all same type) 10BASE-F 5 205 34 234 5 205 .1 .667 4008 FOIRL 0 100 29 129 0 100 .1 .667 3588 10BASE5 4 47 47 90 18 61 .0866 .77 2888 10BASE2 4 23 47 65 18 36 .103 .65 1425 10BASE-T 8 19 42 53 13 24 .114 .585 1200 Excess AUI N/A 5 NA 5 NA 5 .103 .65 N/A This is possible because every multisegment path has at least a left end and a right end, with or without mid segments. It's worth mentioning that _no_ 10Mb/s network shorter than 2700 meters (including AUI) is delay-limited!! So for networks shorter than that, this exercise can be skipped!!! That includes _all_ purely 10BASE-T and 10BASE2 networks. Open the section with that observation.

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 184
bullet 3

change "0.5 meters" to "0.5 meter"

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 187
last paragraph, line 4

change "individual segment" to "individual segments"

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 189
Add the following to the footnote:

"IEEE uses _c_ = 3.00 * 10^8 for Ethernet calculations."

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 189
footnote

In the footnote, changed "...speed of light." to "...speed of light in vacuum."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 196
line 5

change "4.88" to "4.92"

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 196
paragraph 3

change "9.76" to "9.84"

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 196
5th paragraph, last line

Does the fiber base delay value include an assumed 2. meters of AUI cable (hence the 48. rather than 50. meters maximum "excess" AUI)? If so, we have 23. meters excess times 4 cables, for 96 * .1026 = 9.44 bit times.

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 196
5th paragraph should read

100 m * .1026 bit time/m = 10.26 bit times or: 100 m * .1017 bit time/m = 10.17 bit times or: 96 m * .1017 bit time/m = 9.76 bit times

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 197
table 13-10

10BASE2 Left End should be 30.73 (using .1026 BT/m) or 30.72 (using 2/.65*30 BT/m).

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 197
tables 13-10 and 13-11

Excess AUI should be 19.68 bit times, not 19.52.

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 197
tables 13-10 and 13-11

In tables 13-10 and 13-11, the excess AUI length total should reflect the corrections noted above for {182} and {196}.

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 197
table 13-11;

"Quan. Three" should be "Quan. Four"

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 200
1st paragraph, lines 5 & 6;

change "0.477 bit times" to "0.477 bit time" change "0.954 bit times" to "0.954 bit time"

Note from the Author or Editor:
this chapt eliminated in 2nd ed

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 229
Under the heading "Maintain the minimum bending radius" it did read

"...four times the cable radius." Now reads: "...four times the cable diameter."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 231
The ninth line of the first paragraph

"...are still considered..." NOW READS: "...is still considered..."

Anonymous    Mar 01, 2004
Printed
Page 232
first sentence in the second paragraph

The first sentence in the second paragraph did read: "The optional wiring sequence is widely used in the United States, and many..." Now reads: "The optional wiring sequence is widely used, and many..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 247
3rd paragraph

There are a several ways to tell the difference between a normal, straight-through cable, and a crossover cable. "There are several ways"

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 249
paragraph 1, line 5

change "very" to "ultra"

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 257
The first sentence in the fourth paragraph used to read

"...typically operates over multimode fiber using LED transmitters with a wavelength of 1350 nm." It now reads: "...operates at a wavelength of approximately 1350 nm (1295-1365 nm is the range allowed in the specifications) and uses LED transmitters over multimode fiber optic cable."

Anonymous    Jun 01, 2001
Printed
Page 258
last line of the first paragraph

The last line of the first paragraph did read: "10BASE-FX." Now reads: "100BASE-FX"

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 280
fifth line of the third paragraph

The fifth line of the third paragraph did read: "...only two devices at each end of a given link segment, which limits..." Now reads: "only two devices on a given link segment; one on each end. This limits..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 282
fourth line of the second paragraph

The fourth line of the second paragraph did read: "...and two Class II repeaters..." Now reads: "...or two Class II repeaters..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 294
The second sentence in the third paragraph:

"This display provides the sum..." NOW READS: "This display provides the sums..."

Anonymous    Mar 01, 2004
Printed
Page 295

The first sentence of the last paragraph did read: "...shown on this port is nearly 30 percent of the number... rate for this port is around 30 percent." Now reads: "...shown on this port is nearly 3 percent of the number... rate for this port is around 3 percent."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 295
third sentence of the last paragraph

The third sentence of the last paragraph did read: "...(4,294,967,300 to be precise)." Now reads: "...(4,294,967,296 to be precise)."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 296
first sentence of the first full paragraph

The first sentence of the first full paragraph did read: "Note that this port has counted over 3.4 billion total frames..." Now reads: "...counted over 363 million total frames..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 296
fourth line of the second paragraph

The fourth line of the second paragraph did read: "...and then counted another 3.4 billion." Now reads: "...and then counted another 363 million."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 296
sixth line of the second paragraph

The sixth line of the second paragraph did read: "...collision rate is around 30 percent..." Now reads: "...collision rate is around 3 percent..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 296
last two sentences of the third paragraph

The last two sentences of the third paragraph did read: "Now the collision rate is less than 3 percent of the total frames. This is a much more realistic picture of the current statistics on this port." Now read: "Once again, the collision rate is around 3 percent of the total frames, showing that in this case the original counters were correct. By clearing the counter displays and taking a new snapshot, we have verified that the collision rate is being correctly reported."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 313
The first two sentences of the last paragraph should be updated to read

"A new 802.3ad link aggregation standard has been developed... This standard was formally adopted in 2000."

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 339
4th paragraph, line 2

change "and by 100 for Gigabit Ethernet" to "and by 100 for (full-duplex) Gigabit Ethernet"

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 355
The 6th line of the 2nd full paragraph

"Some problems only seem to occur..." NOW READS: "Some problems seem to occur only..."

Anonymous    Mar 01, 2004
Printed
Page 380-381

The IEEE standard for Ethernet is quoted as 802.3, 1998 Edition Information technology--Telecommunications and information exchange between systems--Local and metropolitan area networks--Specific requirements--Part 3: Carrier sense multiple access with collision detection (CSMA/CD) access method and physical layer specifications. This edition includes all contents of the 8802-3:1996 Edition, plus IEEE Std 802.3aa-1998, IEEE Std 802.3r-1996, IEEE Std 802.3u-1995, IEEE Std 802.3x&y-1997, and IEEE802.3z-1998. Price U.S. $387.00 ISBN 0-7381-0330-6 Product Code: SH94652-NYF Should read: 802.3, 2000 Edition IEEE Standard for Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications. This edition also includes all contents of IEEE Std 802.3ab-1999, IEEE Std 802.3ac-1998 and IEEE Std 802.3ad-2000. Print: 1562 pages [0-7381-2673-X] [SH94892-NYF] $295.00 * IEEE Mbr: $236.00 PDF: [0-7381-2674-8] [SS94892-NYF] $443.00 * IEEE Mbr: $354.00

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms with ref to latest ed of standard

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 402
last sentence in the first paragraph

The last sentence in the first paragraph did read: "...maximum bend..." Now reads: "...minimum bend..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 403
first paragraph of the sidebar

In the first paragraph of the sidebar, in the sixth line, deleted "one vendor's set of" from the sentence.

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 421
The third line of the second paragraph

"silicon caulk...." NOW READS: "silicone caulk...."

Anonymous    Mar 01, 2004
Printed
Page 445
Sixth paragraph

BNC stands for Bayonet-Neill-Concelman, the last names of the people who designed the crafty little thing. I have found this explanation in the newsgroup comp.dcomp.cabling under subject "Re: What does SMA and ST stand for?" sent by Philip Kim, pkim@cts.com.

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 445
Sixth paragraph

Change "names of two designers of coaxial connectors" to "names of two designers of coaxial connectors, Paul Neill and Carl Concelman."

Note from the Author or Editor:
fixed in 2nd ed ms

Anonymous   
Printed
Page 445

The BNC entry did read: "...Bayonet Neil-Concelman..." Now reads: "...Bayonet Neill-Concelman..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 452

The third line of the MII entry did read: "...attach 802.3 interfaces (MACs) to..." Now reads: "...attach 802.3 interfaces to..."

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 453

The glossary entry for "PHY" HAS BEEN MOVED so that it occurs between "Phase Jitter" and "Physical Address." The entry for "Receive Collision" HAS BEEN MOVED so that it occurs between "Protocol" and "Repeater."

Anonymous    Mar 01, 2004
Printed
Page 460
Added the following term to the index

"100BASE-T4, 18, 81"

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000
Printed
Page 461

The entry for "10BROAD36" did read: "10BROAD36, 16" Now reads: "10BROAD36, 16, 81"

Anonymous    Sep 01, 2000