|

5-4-3 Rule
The above rules have lead to a simplified procedure for creating multi-segment Ethernet networks called the 5-4-3 rule. In the 5-4-3 rule, a total of five segments can exist connected by four repeaters as long as no more than three are bus segments. This is a very simple rule and it does not
address the three, two or one repeater configuration. The rule also does
not address the maximum allowable segment length under the varying conditions.
In general, fiber segments are limited when using multiple repeaters.
For these special situations, approach 2 should be used to determine if
the proposed expansion method will not exceed the limit of the collision
domain.
|
|
|
Figure 2 Approach 2 uses the path model. |
APPROACH 2
For a detailed analysis on the restrictions for cascading hubs, approach 2 can be used. With this approach two parameters are calculated. First the worst case round trip delay is calculated. Second the interframe gap (IFG) shrinkage is calculated. The IEEE 802.3 standard provides tables for these calculations. This approach is used for situations not covered
in the more generalized approach number 1.
The model used consists of two DTEs interconnected by repeaters as shown
in Figure 2. There is a left end DTE and a right end DTE. The middle segments
are for the repeaters. The round-trip bit times for all devices can be
found in the table. This calculation is done first. The total round trip
delay of all devices or components cannot exceed 575 bit times. This number
is based upon the 64-bit preamble followed by 511 bits of frame. You should
include some margin (up to 5 bits) and the standard recommends not exceeding 572. Some
technical references will say the limit is actually 512 bit times since
this is the slot time. This ignores the 64-bit preamble. IEEE 802.3 considers
the preamble as well. Table 1 provides a listing of segment delay values (SDV) for
the various media.
As an example let us assume an all twisted-pair network consisting of
six segments and five repeaters. Since both ends are 10BASE-T segments,
there is no significance to left end and right end. If the end segments
are indeed different, you would need to do the calculation twice since
the left and right end delays are different. Use the worst case calculation.
For our example, we want to use the maximum allowable segment length of
100 meters. Therefore, from the chart select 26.55 and 176.3 for the ends
and 53.3 for the four mid-segments. Adding them all up yields 416.05 which
is less than the 572 limit. There seems to be much margin. If you do not
use the maximum length of the segments in the calculation, you will need
to calculate the actual delay value for a particular length of cable using
the following equation: SDV = Base + [Length * (RT delay/meter)]. Do not forget
to add the base value which represents the inherent delay within the transceiver.
These base values include the effect of 2 m of AUI cables and are therefore
conservative since AUI cables are seldom used today. However, if more than
2 m of AUI is to be used, this additional length must be included in the calculation.
|
Segment
Type
|
Max
length
|
Left
End
|
Mid-sement
|
Right
End
|
RT
delay /
meter
|
|
Base
|
Max
|
Base
|
Max
|
Base
|
Max
|
| 10BASE5
Coax |
500
|
11.75
|
55.05
|
46.5
|
89.8
|
169.5
|
212.8
|
0.0866
|
| 10BASE2
Coax |
185
|
11.75
|
30.731
|
46.5
|
65.48
|
169.5
|
188.48
|
0.1026
|
| FOIRL |
1000
|
7.75
|
107.75
|
29
|
129
|
152
|
252
|
0.1
|
| 10BASE-T |
100
|
15.25
|
26.55
|
42
|
53.3
|
165
|
176.3
|
0.113
|
| 10BASE-FP |
1000
|
11.25
|
111.25
|
61
|
161
|
183.5
|
284
|
0.1
|
| 10BASE-FB |
2000
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
24
|
233.5
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
0.1
|
| 10BASE-FL |
2000
|
12.25
|
212.25
|
33.5
|
233.5
|
156.5
|
356.5
|
0.1
|
| Excess
Length AUI |
48
|
0
|
4.88
|
0
|
4.88
|
0
|
4.88
|
0.1026
|
Table 1 Segment round-trip delay values in bit times. The total round-trip
cannot exceed 572 bit times.
The next calculation
is to determine the IFG shrinkage. As frames are processed through repeaters,
there may be loss of bits that must be compensated for by the repeaters.
The result is that the time between frames might be reduced below the
minimum stated in the standard. Therefore, a path variability value (PVV)
calculation must be made on the worst-case path. Table 2 provides the
values. Note that you do not need to consider the receiving end. Therefore,
there are only five effected segmentsthe transmitting segment
and the four mid-segments. For the transmitting segment use 10.5 and for
the mid-segments use 8. The total would be 42.5 which is less than the
49 maximum that is allowed by the standard. This example shows there is a
situation where five repeaters can be used in a row which contradicts approach 1.
However, if you want to remain conservative, limit your network to four repeaters.
Notice that if we added one more repeater in our example (one more mid-segment) that
the additional 8 bit times in the PVV calculation would exceed 49. Therefore,
we could still pass the delay calculation but fail the IFG test.
|
Segment
Type
|
Transmitting
End
|
Mid-segment
|
|
Coax
|
16
|
11
|
|
Link
except 10BASE-FB
|
10.5
|
8
|
|
10BASE-FB
|
N/A
|
2
|
|
10BASE-FP
|
11
|
8
|
Table 2 Segment variability values in bit times. The total cannot exceed 49.
Summary
Shared Ethernet networks can be extended with repeaters as long as the network diameter does not exceed the limit of a single collision domain. The IEEE 802.3 standard mentions two approaches in determining the limit. Approach 1 provides a set of rules which has resulted in the short form
5-4-3 rule. Approach 2 is more analytical and should be used when the
network topology is inconsistent with the rules. What should be remembered
is that in a shared Ethernet network, repeaters should not be applied
without thought.
References
Practical Networking With Ethernet, Charles E. Spurgeon, 2000, International
Thomson Computer Press
Switched and Fast Ethernet, Second Edition, Robert Breyer and Sean Riley,
1996, Macmillan Computer Publishing USA
International Standard ISO/IEC 8802-3 ANSI/IEEE Std 802.3, 2000, The Institute
of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.
|