[kwlug-disc] CAT6 - worthwhile?

unsolicited unsolicited at swiz.ca
Sat Oct 26 17:21:56 EDT 2013


Right, but 5e is gigabit. (But not 10 gigabit.)

 > Q: Will Gigabit Ethernet devices negotiate a Gigabit connection even
 > over CAT5 cable?

They'll try, and fall back to 100 if not. I expect for runs short enough 
they'll succeed/sustain ok. At least you can try without cost and see 
what happens. Might keep an eye on whether you get frequent network 
up/down / renegotiation periods. If you do ... it ain't working.

K.I.S.S. matters. Especially if you're not the next guy who has to 
switch something - but you are the guy who has to explain it over the 
phone. WAF comes into play! (You want me to do ... what?!? No! It'll 
wait until you get home. <sigh>)

On 13-10-26 04:58 PM, Bob Jonkman wrote:
> Unsolicited wrote:
>> no amount of devices on that wi-fi will ever saturate the gigabit
>> - wi-fi will never be that fast. (?)
>
> Technology is not only more amazing than we imagine, it is more
> amazing than we can imagine:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/05/wifi-goes-gigabit-but-wont-go-through-walls/
>
>  And then there's this:
>
> http://techcitement.com/hardware/light-fidelity-communications-at-the-speed-of-light/
>
>  So installing Gigibit cabling is definitely future-proofing.
>
> For Chris, who asked if he should install a wallwart switch or pull
> new cable:  Pull new cable.
>
> If you're only using 100Mb/s devices now, then they only use two
> pairs of wire in the cable.  It's possible to make a short-term cheat
> by connecting the other two pairs to a second jack.  It'll cause
> some cross-talk (which results in dropped packets) so this is not a
> cheat for high-bandwidth applications.  Ironically, if the cable is
> CAT6 the pairs are better separated, so this cheat works better with
> CAT6.  If you do this, don't tell anyone. Especially network
> technicians.
>
> Q: Will Gigabit Ethernet devices negotiate a Gigabit connection even
> over CAT5 cable?  I don't know, but if you're using Gigabit devices
> at both ends then all four pairs might be used and you'll need to
> find another solution.
>
> --Bob.
>
>
> On 13-10-26 01:55 PM, John Van Ostrand wrote:>
>> I see cat 6 being useful for a few things. Although I use wifi for
>> my laptop most of the time when I want to move lots of data I want
>> a cable. The same goes for a PC which I still find useful. Access
>> points can use it and I'd rather run a cable than use a mesh. Not
>> only does a cable provide network it can provide power. I'd you
>> have to bring one cable to a device why not a dual purpose cable.
>> Videophiles might want less compression on their signal so might
>> use cat 6 to carry hdmi instead of running hdmi cable. Security
>> devices are a niche that still fits cabling ( though not generally
>> cat6).
>>
>> One probably will soon be able to use wireless entirely on every
>> device for every reason. So call me old fashioned but a switched
>> network always runs better than a share media network. Why cat6?
>> Because if I'm running cable I go for price performance.
>>
>> As for the quality of the cable install, Badly installed cat6 (
>> like a sharp bend radius) will have fewer failed packets than wifi
>> and it won't have any collisions. Run you microwave and see if
>> your tablet has wifi when your standing within ten feet of it.
>>
>> Both have usefulness.
>>
>>
>> *From: *unsolicited *Sent: *Saturday, October 26, 2013 2:30 AM *To:
>> *KWLUG discussion *Reply To: *KWLUG discussion *Subject: *Re:
>> [kwlug-disc] CAT6 - worthwhile?
>>
>> OK, but my real basic question is, to what end?
>>
>> Gigabit has even now not permeated enough of the world. (Why any
>> laptop still comes with 10/100 is beyond me). Even my USB 3.0 /
>> gigabit adapter can't saturate the gigabit.
>>
>> Future proof for what (copper wise)?
>>
>> If the world is going tablets and phones - that's wifi, not
>> copper. Even if you have copper and an AP at each room for wi-fi
>> devices to connect to, no amount of devices on that wi-fi will ever
>> saturate the gigabit - wi-fi will never be that fast. (?)
>>
>> Home wise, I'm not prepared to even put out for multi-run bonding
>> - the equipment required at each end is extraordinarily expensive
>> (for home). I don't imagine it's any different for 10Gps CAT6
>> ethernet, let alone fibre. And if it's fibre we get to, the copper
>> run, 5e or 6, isn't going to be useful.
>>
>> So if most things can't saturate gigabit now, and fibre is going
>> to need another run anyways if we get there ... future proof for
>> what (sorts of beasties / media)?
>>
>> I'm not objecting to 6 over 5e, I just wonder ... for what? -
>> especially given the more expensive equipment required at each
>> switch point, and the tighter bend and untwist limits for 6. I'd
>> bet every home 6 installation breaks at each jack / switch / 5e
>> device<->jack cable.
>>
>> If you've bent a cable, what, more than 30 degrees, or untwisted a
>> pair, or untwisted pairs more than 1/2 inch - you've just made
>> using cat 6 pointless.
>>
>>
>> So my real question was ... what's coming that might need 6 over
>> 5e?
>>
>> In house HD video distribution?
>>
>>
>> On 13-10-25 04:57 PM, John Van Ostrand wrote:
>>> Personally I think any new installation should use Cat 6. It's
>>> only marginally more expensive than 5e but could future-proof
>>> your house a little more. That said 5e will perform very well in
>>> a house since runs tend to be short and will work in cases where
>>> Cat 6 is supposedly required. The way I look at it is that the
>>> time spend installing is the the most expensive cost (even when
>>> done yourself) so using a higher grade cable future-proofs so you
>>> can avoid pulling everything out and re-doing cable. Sometimes
>>> I'll use 5e jacks because those are easier to replace.
>> . . .
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ kwlug-disc mailing
> list kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org




More information about the kwlug-disc mailing list