I can agree with you that those topics you listed are old technology, but it's how we got where we are today. What's wrong with learning the history of networks?
LAN is an abbreviation always used today, its definition should be given with the today's world. History is another history.
Let me try to define LAN,
Network on a user's premises within a limited geographical area, consist of equipments (as ordinators, switches, routers) and physical links.
- It includes routers,
- A LAN could be composed with one orseveral bridged LAN
- LAN if full wired at the difference of the WLAN
- A local entre prise network is made of LAN an WLAN
Thanks for your words,
What is my definition of a LAN Network? I typically would actually refer to it as a LAN or a Local Area Network. LAN Network seems a bit redundant, but so does NIC Card (well I guess that depends on if NIC = Network Interface Card or Controller).
In any case, I think of a LAN as a local network. Not a network that connects across town, even in the case of metro ethernet. With a LAN, the enterprise typically owns all the components including all of the cabling and switches. This stuff is a bit grayer than it used to be. Today we often use LAN interfaces and technology to connect to a WAN.
Don't forget that a lot of those terms still appy in the wireless arena, because radio is a shared medium.
As far as learning the history, I think it is beneficial in the long run, but not necessarily required in the short term. Learning how networks work CURRENTLY, I believe is far more beneficial in getting a job or promotion in the near future. Long term, the more you know the better off you are regardless.
Edit to add - I usually reserve the "LAN" reference to a campus network, or a datacenter. The term "segment" I think is a better fit for small switched mediums say between routers for failover.
> LAN Network seems a bit redundant, but so does NIC Card
> (well I guess that depends on if NIC = Network Interface Card or Controller).
I have sometimes this trouble. Have you never wrote "IP protocol" ?
> Don't forget that a lot of those terms still appy in the wireless
> arena, because radio is a shared medium.
I was asking to myself if we can include WLAN in LAN.
We have this statement in 802.1D-2004 section 3.4:
it depends on where you are: LAN is my living room; or my house or building, or campus (although you could use campus area network).
if you use historical perspective on definition of LAN, it would be LAN contains switches and hosts and stops at router.
Beyound router is WAN.
I too would say beyond a router is WAN. This is true as long as it is connected to a wider geographic area and going across 3rd party cabling and switches. It is entirely possible that a router is connecting two or more LANs in the same local area. In that case, I'd still consider it a LAN.
Hi Martin and Paul,
I think we have 2 kind of router locations:
- Either internal routers inside the client site
- Either edges routers between the client site and the provider network, that is the CE
I would say that beyond the router is WAN, only if the router is on edge.
> It is entirely possible that a router is connecting two or more LANs
> in the same local area. In that case, I'd still consider it a LAN.
I would go in this sense by mentioning the "edge routers" and the "internal routers".
And we come back to your suggestion with the "LAN interface" and the "WAN interface" of an "edge router".
A LAN is a network that is ended at the LAN interface of an edge router.
After, we can distinguish in that LAN several "bridged LAN" or "virtual bridged LAN".
The LAN (generical term) would include the internal routers, and not the edge routers.
A LAN could be an enterprise network, an administration network or the living room of Martin (that is a home or domestic network if the last qualifier is a good word for0 that).
Thanks for your comments,
What a neat discussion. Although those terms of collision domain, half duplex and shared media seem to be antiquated, it is aboslutely amazing to see how they still apply in todays networks. People still use hubs. All of those concepts still apply in the wireless arena, as Travis pointed out.
I would personally consider the WLAN an extension of the LAN as it uses the LAN as its backbone, typically. If the routing device aggregates one or more LANS to a point to point or point to multipoint link, I would consider that WAN. But if it is just allowing 2 broadcast domains to talk to each other with no aggregation to a 3rd network.... I wouldn't consider that a WAN.