<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Ethernet on Merrimac</title><link>https://merrimac.nl/en/tags/ethernet/</link><description>Recent content in Ethernet on Merrimac</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Jun 2022 18:03:47 +0200</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://merrimac.nl/en/tags/ethernet/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Are Eco Ethernet switches Greener?</title><link>https://merrimac.nl/en/2009/12/06/are-eco-ethernet-switches-greener/</link><pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:23:00 +0100</pubDate><guid>https://merrimac.nl/en/2009/12/06/are-eco-ethernet-switches-greener/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;There was a recent discussion on Panbo where some people proposed that Ethernet, and more specifically using the IP protocol with a 100BASE-TX or 1000BASE-T physical layer. I am still sceptical of that for several reasons. One of them is that an IP stack rules out using small micro controllers, or requires extra hardware. This drives up the cost of the minimal hardware node. A zigbee or bluetooth based system is much more low-end friendly and has the added benefit of needing no wires.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>