Talk:Network topology/Archive 1

Archive 1

DAG

How about a graph image with directed arcs showing a directed asymmetric graph? btw I am using these graphic images in a couple of pages I have edited, they are very effective. Being new, I couldnt figure out from the graphics page who was making them and with what software. They look a bit like they could be made with Pajek, which also does svg and directed arcs--Douglas R. White 22:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Star-bus network

As stated in the Star-bus network discussion page, I believe it should be merged into this article. The information provided about the star-bus network on this article is more extensive than the standalone page itself. The Star-bus network article by itself has very little use. --Sadasdas 10:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As nobody objected nor commented to this, I redirected the page.

Lack of references / correctness of article...

I have a link to my wireless mesh topology page which I wrote a number of years back. It good to see that people are using it for reference and are creating terminology that is evolving. This is good but a lot has been written in this description which was used from my basis article that was researched back in 2004 and items that used should actually be referenced. We could also get someone to edit this into english would also help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.167.6 (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Could the author(s) of this article please add some citations to references.

Also, it seems that the article could be rewritten so that it is more in line with other references and web resources - i.e., there is no mention in the article about the distinction between physical and logical topologies, why they exist as separate topics in discussions concerning network topology, etc.

Also, many other resources which range from network study guides to university professor's notes use an entirely different approach to the subject which seems to be more conducive to an understanding of the subject i.e., starting with physical topologies and explaining how these topologies came about and then evolving the discussion into more complex subjects (relatively speaking), such as logical topologies.

The article seems to contradict itself in at least one respect in that it first states that "A network topology is the pattern of links connecting pairs of nodes of a network." and then includes physical connections in the statement that "Distances between nodes, physical interconnections, transmission rates, and/or signal types are not a matter of network topology, although they may be affected by it in an actual physical network." which is confusing to a beginner, since the links which connect the nodes of a network are quite often represented entirely by a physical interconnection and determine (in my understanding) a large part of the physical topology of a network.

I thought about rewriting the article myself and taking into consideration the above but, since I am not an expert on the subject, I would be writing from the viewpoint of a student with references to the appropriate authors and an almost complete rewrite of the article. I am hesitant to do this because the original author or authors may have superior knowledge of the subject (e.g., I am not a mathematician) and some information may be lost in the rewrite.

Is there some place where a person can post a rewrite of the article without superseding the current article until it has been discussed and some consensus reached? It seemed inappropriate to post a rewrite in the discussion page due to the potential length of the article and I do not want to write the article on the simple.wikipedia.org site as I would be using (as another commenter stated) higher level language and would have a difficult time choosing other words. --mlewis000 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you just go ahead with the rewrite. If you make any mistakes, someone else can fix them — at worst, if your rewrite really sucks, someone will just revert the article back to the old version. Nobody owns articles on Wikipedia. If you want to make a "draft" version first, you can do so on a subpage of your user page, for example at User:Mlewis000/Network topology draft. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a useful response to my inquiry - I'll see what I can do... --mlewis000 18:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote the article and either incorporated the original author's content or left it intact. --mlewis000 15:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.228.139 (talk)

Page from Commons

Please add this to the "External links" section: {{Commons|Topology (Network)}} --Milan Keršláger (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Real(-istic) Network Topologies

This page describes mainly the basic network topologies used in Local Area Network, and some principles to build bigger networks. However, there's decades of literature on what the scientific community calls "network topology": The emerging topology of interconnected networks (aka Internets). There are Power Laws, Hierarchical Structures, Geographic oddities and so on. The earliest papers from 1988 move away from the topologies listed in this article, so is there a point in adding this knowledge to the article? Also there are several generators for such topology models for simulation, as well as several "well-known topologies" from various public networks. Is this too heavy for the wikipedia, or should there be an article called "Network Topology Modeling", "Topology Generation" or the like? -- 80.136.104.242 (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No it's probably not too heavy, our inclusion criteria are that a subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (or initial authors for that matter), see Wikipedia:Notability for details. We can't accept original research, but we still have documentation on advanced topics in various domains. Cenarium ^Talk 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected

It seems one or more anonymous users keep vandalizing this article with surprising frequency compared to the amount of legitimate editing it receives, often removing or replacing entire sections. The same problem has occurred before; at one point the article had shrunk to less than half its length due to uncaught section blanking before I noticed something funny and dug the lost sections back out of the edit history. To hopefully reduce the likelihood of something similar happening again, I've decided to semiprotect the article, preventing anonymous users from editing it. If you have a legitimate edit you'd like to make to this article, and can't or don't wish to log in or register an account, please leave a note here on this talk page asking me or someone else to make the change for you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You should remove any form of protection. Who are you to decide for the whole community at large what gets edited or removed? Maybe the removed sections were deemed completely wrong or unreadable by someone with a lot more expertise. Once someone thinks they can take control of an article, it no longer belongs to the community of ALL. If you are going to do this kind of thing, then Wikipedia should be completely locked down and NO article should be published until completely fact checked and approved through academic peer review process just as any scholarly journal.64.162.229.144 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection again

Sigh. I've just reverted this article back to a revision from two months ago. Again, multiple sections had been vandalized or deleted outright, and no-one had spotted the problem. I tried to check that I wasn't reverting any legitimate changes, but it's possibly that some may have been made in the mean time and later undone by vandals, in which case I may have missed them; if so, sorry.

I don't know why such an obscure article keeps getting hit by vandals so frequently and repeatedly, but it doesn't seem to show any sign of stopping. The average edit rate seems to be about one edit per day, which is fine, but a large fraction of them seems to be vandalism that is only sporadically caught, which isn't. The only break was last summer, when this article was semiprotected from June 13 to August 20. During that time there were a total of nine edits by five users, all of which were useful and one of which actually introduced a whole new section. That looks more like the edit rate an article like this should be getting.

I think, on the whole, that the editing this article has been constantly subject to counts as "heavy and persistent vandalism" as stated in the semi-protection policy linked to above. Semi-protection has been tried before, and it worked, but the problems resumed as soon as it was removed. Thus, per the rough guide to semi-protection and my subjective evaluation of the history of this article, I've decided to semi-protect this article indefinitely.

Semi-protection means that the article will not be editable by new or unregistered users. If you would like to make an improvement or correction to this article, but cannot edit it yourself, please leave a note here on this discussion page. Another editor will notice it and, if it seems reasonable, make the changes for you. If the issue is urgent, prefix your message with "{{editprotected}}"; this should rapidly summon an administrator who will review the issue and make any necessary changes. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's why I will NEVER use or recommend Wikipedia as a legitimate source. There is always some control freak who thinks he knows better than the rest and limits access to the public editing process. Who thinks their SINGLE point of view is shared by the whole community. These kinds of decisions should NEVER be left to an individual.64.162.229.144 (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Network topology → Network_Topography — Perhaps the page should be renamed to the more industry accepted term for network design, Network Topography. 12.50.211.2 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed formatting 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: the capitalisation is incorrect (it's not a proper noun), no evidence is given and the subject matter has a lot more to do with topology than topography. Far from convinced. Knepflerle (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I Oppose the renaming move too. Topology and Topography are different terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darnir redhat (talk • contribs) 11:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

each network and connected a blackbone cable os bue topology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.7.119 (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Split the article?

Hi, I think that this article is monstrose, trying to cover everything on a single page, I think that the article itself should be just a summary what a network topology is, the diagram and a list to dedicated articles about single topologies. LuciusMare (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems so because the article is not well-worded.. I tried to rectify it, but then it got very difficult, and I lack time. No one came forward to help. If we can, re-organise this article, it will no longer be such a difficult read. But I do not think highly of splitting the article. Darshit 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darnir redhat (talk • contribs)

The article does not need to be split. It needs to be developed in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. Some of the information covered in {{Main}} articles needs to be thinned or moved to the linked articles. We're making progress. I agree with Bryanrutherford0's recent promotion to C class. ~KvnG

updating

Anyone interested in updating this article a bit? There seems to be a lot in here about technologies that are obsolete. I realize that these are used as examples to illustrate the network topology, and not the technology itself; but I worry about the relevance of these examples when no one is operating a token ring network today except perhaps a few corner-cases with 20-year old network gear. If there needs to be a section added on the history of network topology, or something more current, i'm open to helping out. Nothingofwater (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

hey i read your given information i am fully knowledge .thanks for the help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.15.109 (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC) well i actually think room should be given for more clarity. this article doesnt help a beginner much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.199.195.66 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Grid network merge

I suggest merging the stub grid network into network topology. Both of them talk about the same thing -- the topology of what computers are connected to what other computers, ignoring signal types, physical distances, etc. -- right? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be good reason go ahead--Andy (talk - contrib) 09:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• oppose - The grid network article is not well developed so a merge would be difficult. What I gather is that grid networking is related to grid computing. Grid computing is not a network topology topic. A merge, in this case, would not be indicated. --Kvng (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• oppose - the term 'grid topology' as used in that article is not a network topology as in the sense of this article, but is the logical or physical distribution of functional components that are needed for grid computing. While network topology may be a consideration in that, the two are fundamentally different topics. Kbrose (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You removed the merge banner from Grid network. I've responded and removed it from this article. I think we can call this one

Resolved

. --Kvng (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Cellular?

Anyone know of a "cellular" topology? Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking of Cellular network --Kvng (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Section: Tree Topology

I revised the section on tree network topology and request some feedback on its simplicity after editing. 17th April 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.155.156 (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Structure of article

I'm confused with the article's structure: I'd expected the descriptions of the various topologies to be presented at the same paragraph level, especially since section 1 "Basic types of topologies" presents a list of, apparently, basic topologies. Furthermore, a distinction between the 3 classifications of network topologies is being presented in section 2, however it seems to be mixed up with the basic topologies. In my opinion the structure should be something along the following lines:

• Basic types of topologies
  • bus
  • ring
  • star
  • mesh
  • etc. etc.
• classifications of network topologies
  • physical topologies
  • signal topologies
  • logical topologies

Whether the current structure is a result of vandalizing (as suggested by Ilmari Karonen, however unfortunately not solved by the semi-protection) or that it's a legitimate and serves a well-thought purpose, cannot be distinguished. Hence: either correct the structure and take corrective actions to prevent further vandalism, or more explicitly describe the purpose of this structure. --139.63.221.6 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should have a list and brief description of all the frequently-used network topologies, including Clos network, cube-connected cycles, fat tree, and likely many others not currently mentioned in the current version of the "network topology" article.

Should we list all of them here? As User: 139.63.221.6 suggested, the basic types would be described earlier, and the highly technical specializations would go close to the end of the article, as per WP:UPFRONT.

I suspect this topic so big that "network topology" needs to be a Wikipedia: summary style introduction to the topic -- in that case, what other article(s) would be appropriate for listing technical specialized types of network topologies? --DavidCary (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Network topology/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It seems like this page should be linked with some related topics, e.g., "small world network" and "scale free network". Also, the relationship of the terminology used in these three articles is not clear. It would help the reader tremendousely to describe how the terms are related. --Jalanthomas (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Network topology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071213001352/http://www.meshdynamics.com:80/? to http://www.meshdynamics.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This ref was removed by this edit. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Clarifications on and Image for Tree Topology Section

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)

There is no longer a Tree topology section in this article There is a diagram at Tree network but it doesn't look like a tree. ~Kvng (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Glow Topology

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 think it would be a good idea to start a separate article on the subject. My reasoning is that the main article will be read by beginners to the topic and, therefore, should include only the basic topologies with links to separate articles covering the more advanced topologies. This is only my opinion, however. --mlewis000 06:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I too think it would be a good idea to add the Glow topology and would be more than willing to contribute. --Leggyman

Glow topology is still a redlink. ~Kvng (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)