Talk:Token Ring

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Token Ring article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months

Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

	Telecommunications Low‑importance
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of Active monitor was merged into Token Ring on 2015-06-28. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Category 4 cable claims this was the cable used for Token ring. If this is true, perhaps it should be mentioned in this article. --Kvng (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the shielded twisted pair cable that token ring cards require have a different impedance than Cat 4 (which I believe is 100 Ohms like cat 3 or telco cable). See http://www.epanorama.net/documents/wiring/twistedpair.html Shjacks45 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shjacks45, your document also mentions Token Ring in their discussion of Cat 2 and Cat 4. While IBM Type 1 cabling is 150 ohm, that doesn't preclude them from later using 100 ohm in a different cabling system. This edit was part of a series of edits that introduced a bunch of information along with the claim it could run on Cat 6. I think the author made a little mistake and that he meant Cat 4, since it's nice if your cabling exists before you start to use it ;-). I also changed the RJ45 to 8P8C; even though I see IBM documentation using the RJ45 misnomer, I don't think that should be maintained. Digital Brains (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some good technical but kind of messy, repeated items about the ring. Most token ring cards (in PCs) that I've encountered were DB9 (look at the picture), and yes if RX and TX were split out you could setup a few computers in an actual ring. Unlike Arcnet however, when a computer was turned off, the network card didn't automatically complete the circuit. MAUs or passive hubs would simply bypass computers that were off or disconnected. Active hubs allowed for "source routing" c.f. it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_routing_(token_ring)‎ or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_route_bridging‎, which sent "unroutable"

Yes, surprisingly no mention of "Source Routing". IBM defined a concept of packet routing at the link level that used a modified header and a broadcast discovery protocol. Bridges would add their addresses and forward. The destination node could select a received packet and reverse the route. It wasn't well thought out, and it's not clear how widely it was deployed in practice. IBM seemed to prefer this approach instead of the spanning tree bridge protocols pioneered by Ethernet bridge vendors. Davesnotthere (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears by the capitalization throughout the article that Token Ring is to be considered a proper noun. Seems reasonable. The official title of the article is out of step with this. If there is no controversy about aligning things, I can get the title renamed Token Ring to match. ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree – never liked the lower case version anyway. --Zac67 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng: are you still interested in renaming? I think it would be a good idea, because this article is really about the IBM product, not the network topology, which is covered at Token passing. I was confused by this since IBM isn't even mentioned until the third paragraph, and the first sentence calls it a "technology" rather than a product line. I added a hatnote but I wonder if this could be made more clear in the first sentence. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a consensus. I have requested the move. ~Kvng (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — IVORK _Talk 05:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to adjust all the links here though the

 Done ~Kvng (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to: During this time, IBM argued strongly that Token Ring LANs were superior to Ethernet, especially under load,[6] but these claims were fiercely debated.[7] I'm pretty confident that this is by no means overstating the case, but admit that I haven't yet found a truly compelling cittation. - Snori (talk)

While you're entitled to your opinion, without a quotation, it didn't happen. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. The sources do not say "strongly" and "fiercely." Your reasons in the edit summary are not valid. Per

WP:OR. The fact that these words have been there for a decade holds no weight unless you can point me to a Wikipedia policy that says it does. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I've reverted an edit to the lead that changed "technology" to "access protocol". The source cited says it's a "high-speed communications network". It's not just the access protocol, it's also the cabling, adapters, modulation, network architecture, etc. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Apollo/Domain article has a broken Wikilink for Apollo Token Ring. It seems like this would be a useful subsection for this article, but I don't know enough about the similarities between it and "classic" Token Ring.

I was debating writing and researching a standalone article but wanted to solicit opinions about whether ot not the information should live here or in a new article. Any experts on Apollo here? Remaker (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A

quick search indicates that Apollo Token Ring may be notable enough to merit a stand-alone article. That doesn't mean that there should be one. I am not familiar with Apollo Token Ring but if it was something exclusive to Apollo/Domain, it might be best to cover it in a subsection there. ~Kvng (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]