This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Network topology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Logical topology page were merged into Network topology on 2021-03-30. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
An image showing a horizontal root connection with multiple small connection lines leading into a group of clients will be much, much helpful for the tree topology section.
Further, I think we need to remove the technical details mentioned as points, as they don't add much. We can create a separate page and add it there.
Finally, I think the confusing remark can finally be removed after I simplified the overall tone of the piece.
Princeeternity ( talk) 12:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Should the Glow topology from wireless networks be added? If yes, i'm willing to contribute a decent paragraph on it. Theroachman 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I recently referred my students to Wikipedia for research purposes, however they found the article difficult to read and understand. The text of the article was subjected to a readability text which indicated that the article was of an undergraduate level and therefore not suitable for my students who are aged 16-19. The main problem was that the sentence structure was too long. Would anyone be willing to rewrite the article in more simple English to make it suitable for a wider audience? User:Sarahhcfe 19:58, 23 October 2006
I looked on simple.wikipedia.org, they have two lines on networks and nothing about the topology. It would have been useless to anyone except someone who has just started using computers and has no idea about it, it does have a link to electron microscopes though
User_talk:Darnir_redhat 14:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I have rewritten this article to the best of my ability given my reference sources but am still confused concerning some aspects of the terminology used in this subject, especially concerning the correct usage of the term 'physical'. In some instances the term seems to be used to describe the actual arrangement of the layout of the cabling and the nodes in a network and in other instances it seems to be referring to the physical layer of the OSI model.
For example, the star network, which could exhibit, from a signal standpoint, any number of topologies while physically it is a star with reference to the central node being linked to the peripheral nodes in a hub and spoke fashion with cables. This topology could be used to implement the 802.4 Token Bus network if I am not mistaken but in this implementation (at the PHY layer) it is a physical bus and at the logical layer it is a logical ring which results in three topologies (i.e., physical star [cabling level], physical bus [PHY layer], logical ring) instead of the two referred to in most references (i.e., physical bus / logical ring). I am confused as to how to describe this network in network topology terms. My best attempt would be to describe it as a physical star, signal bus, and logical ring but can find no reference to this type of usage of the terminology.
For another example, the same star network could be implemented using a switch as the hub or central node and then it would exhibit a mesh (hybrid ?) topology as far as the signal is concerned and could be used to implement some type of a logical ring topology (given the correct software in the nodes), in which case I would describe this network as a physical star, signal mesh, and logical ring.
In my examples, the term 'signal' seems to be replaced by 'physical' in many texts and the fact that the physical and signal topologies (my terminology) are different seems to be entirely overlooked or ignored.
If someone could clarify this for me (with some references that are easily accessible over the internet if possible) I would be happy to incorporate this new (for me) understanding into this article.
Thanks! -- mlewis000 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the section Basic Topology types should be removed or clubbed with Classification of Network Topologies. It serves no purpose on its own, alone out there. Any suggestions? Darshit 14:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darnir redhat ( talk • contribs)
If this article is to serve as the {{ Main article}} on topolgy for Computer network, we need to merge most of the material from Computer_network#Network_topology into this article. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Re: Template-ing (shared) Network Topology (content): Oppose
I think templating will ossify the present problems indefinitely, namely the present computer network is really about computer internetworking and presently provides no real room for discussing the many non-internetworking protocols I have worked with. The present sections are duplicates and they should not be. Yes, there is a LOT of overlap, and it is not like we never discuss repeaters, switches, hubs, etc. in respect to CAN or RS-232. But the present computer network is not, er, neutral? Even the Links and Node sections that are duplicated between the two articles are particularly selective of Internet technology examples.
My sense of the issue is a matter of unintentional systemic bias; I conjecture that the population of Wikipedia editors have much more exposure to Internet technologies than they do to the Automotive, Aviation, Industrial, and peripheral non-internet technologies ( IoT not withstanding), so that's what they write about. Sure, one of my present projects has an Ethernet switch, but it is under ModbusTP, SCPI, and some proprietary protocol. There are billions of CAN networks out there and the various high-layer protocols on top of them are interesting (and critical to public safety), but I speculate whether editors of computer network would classify them as "computer networks" (No criticism intended).
Sure, there should be nodes and links in both contexts, but the technologies in computer network should really be more about concrete technologies of computer networks in the Internet context since IMO that is where that article is already, while the nodes, links, and topologies in network topology should be broader and more abstract than they are now. If I was available to fix it, I would see as the network topology as the Broad Topic relative to more specific sections in computer network. E.g., Nodes and Links there are too specific now, the concept of node is much broader than that given under Network Interfaces; NIC and MAC address, as described, are alien to many other network standards. IveGoneAway ( talk) 02:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
And, network topology should be the appropriate content for what Physical layer links to as Physical network topology. Considering the technologies listed under Physical layer, I think it would not work to expand the section in computer network for non-internet-related PHYs. IveGoneAway ( talk) 03:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@ IveGoneAway and GliderMaven: Things have been quiet here for over a year. We still have a lot of material duplicated in the the two articles. Are we happy with this situation? Has anyone come up with any new ideas? Should I ask for more input at WP:NETWORK? ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Network topology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Logical topology page were merged into Network topology on 2021-03-30. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
An image showing a horizontal root connection with multiple small connection lines leading into a group of clients will be much, much helpful for the tree topology section.
Further, I think we need to remove the technical details mentioned as points, as they don't add much. We can create a separate page and add it there.
Finally, I think the confusing remark can finally be removed after I simplified the overall tone of the piece.
Princeeternity ( talk) 12:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Should the Glow topology from wireless networks be added? If yes, i'm willing to contribute a decent paragraph on it. Theroachman 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I recently referred my students to Wikipedia for research purposes, however they found the article difficult to read and understand. The text of the article was subjected to a readability text which indicated that the article was of an undergraduate level and therefore not suitable for my students who are aged 16-19. The main problem was that the sentence structure was too long. Would anyone be willing to rewrite the article in more simple English to make it suitable for a wider audience? User:Sarahhcfe 19:58, 23 October 2006
I looked on simple.wikipedia.org, they have two lines on networks and nothing about the topology. It would have been useless to anyone except someone who has just started using computers and has no idea about it, it does have a link to electron microscopes though
User_talk:Darnir_redhat 14:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I have rewritten this article to the best of my ability given my reference sources but am still confused concerning some aspects of the terminology used in this subject, especially concerning the correct usage of the term 'physical'. In some instances the term seems to be used to describe the actual arrangement of the layout of the cabling and the nodes in a network and in other instances it seems to be referring to the physical layer of the OSI model.
For example, the star network, which could exhibit, from a signal standpoint, any number of topologies while physically it is a star with reference to the central node being linked to the peripheral nodes in a hub and spoke fashion with cables. This topology could be used to implement the 802.4 Token Bus network if I am not mistaken but in this implementation (at the PHY layer) it is a physical bus and at the logical layer it is a logical ring which results in three topologies (i.e., physical star [cabling level], physical bus [PHY layer], logical ring) instead of the two referred to in most references (i.e., physical bus / logical ring). I am confused as to how to describe this network in network topology terms. My best attempt would be to describe it as a physical star, signal bus, and logical ring but can find no reference to this type of usage of the terminology.
For another example, the same star network could be implemented using a switch as the hub or central node and then it would exhibit a mesh (hybrid ?) topology as far as the signal is concerned and could be used to implement some type of a logical ring topology (given the correct software in the nodes), in which case I would describe this network as a physical star, signal mesh, and logical ring.
In my examples, the term 'signal' seems to be replaced by 'physical' in many texts and the fact that the physical and signal topologies (my terminology) are different seems to be entirely overlooked or ignored.
If someone could clarify this for me (with some references that are easily accessible over the internet if possible) I would be happy to incorporate this new (for me) understanding into this article.
Thanks! -- mlewis000 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the section Basic Topology types should be removed or clubbed with Classification of Network Topologies. It serves no purpose on its own, alone out there. Any suggestions? Darshit 14:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darnir redhat ( talk • contribs)
If this article is to serve as the {{ Main article}} on topolgy for Computer network, we need to merge most of the material from Computer_network#Network_topology into this article. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Re: Template-ing (shared) Network Topology (content): Oppose
I think templating will ossify the present problems indefinitely, namely the present computer network is really about computer internetworking and presently provides no real room for discussing the many non-internetworking protocols I have worked with. The present sections are duplicates and they should not be. Yes, there is a LOT of overlap, and it is not like we never discuss repeaters, switches, hubs, etc. in respect to CAN or RS-232. But the present computer network is not, er, neutral? Even the Links and Node sections that are duplicated between the two articles are particularly selective of Internet technology examples.
My sense of the issue is a matter of unintentional systemic bias; I conjecture that the population of Wikipedia editors have much more exposure to Internet technologies than they do to the Automotive, Aviation, Industrial, and peripheral non-internet technologies ( IoT not withstanding), so that's what they write about. Sure, one of my present projects has an Ethernet switch, but it is under ModbusTP, SCPI, and some proprietary protocol. There are billions of CAN networks out there and the various high-layer protocols on top of them are interesting (and critical to public safety), but I speculate whether editors of computer network would classify them as "computer networks" (No criticism intended).
Sure, there should be nodes and links in both contexts, but the technologies in computer network should really be more about concrete technologies of computer networks in the Internet context since IMO that is where that article is already, while the nodes, links, and topologies in network topology should be broader and more abstract than they are now. If I was available to fix it, I would see as the network topology as the Broad Topic relative to more specific sections in computer network. E.g., Nodes and Links there are too specific now, the concept of node is much broader than that given under Network Interfaces; NIC and MAC address, as described, are alien to many other network standards. IveGoneAway ( talk) 02:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
And, network topology should be the appropriate content for what Physical layer links to as Physical network topology. Considering the technologies listed under Physical layer, I think it would not work to expand the section in computer network for non-internet-related PHYs. IveGoneAway ( talk) 03:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@ IveGoneAway and GliderMaven: Things have been quiet here for over a year. We still have a lot of material duplicated in the the two articles. Are we happy with this situation? Has anyone come up with any new ideas? Should I ask for more input at WP:NETWORK? ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)