Cat5/6 100 meters
-
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@wirestyle22 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@JaredBusch said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Which a small 8 port would work here, but is it worth putting in a switch and needing power there over just running fiber?
Best Answer.
Because any thing else requires power.
Regardless of what he is connecting?
To have 2 Ethernet cables that exceed the limit of the cable, you need a switch in-between the two cables. This repeats the signal.
But it's costly in that you need to have power wherever the first cable ends and the second cable begins. Plus you need to install a switch.
Yes, I understand. I said use a repeater at the top. Then JB was JB, even though when you say "switch" it's synonymous with a lot of things that aren't required of a repeater, such as mac address tables. That doesn't matter though because JB just wants to be a dick all of the time.
I ask for clarity as there are very few things that are universally the right decision and I get a giant ellipsis.
Typical Jared though.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@wirestyle22 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@JaredBusch said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Which a small 8 port would work here, but is it worth putting in a switch and needing power there over just running fiber?
Best Answer.
Because any thing else requires power.
Regardless of what he is connecting?
To have 2 Ethernet cables that exceed the limit of the cable, you need a switch in-between the two cables. This repeats the signal.
But it's costly in that you need to have power wherever the first cable ends and the second cable begins. Plus you need to install a switch.
Yes, I understand. I said use a repeater at the top. Then JB was JB, even though when you say "switch" it's synonymous with a lot of things that aren't required of a repeater, such as mac address tables. That doesn't matter though because JB just wants to be a dick all of the time.
I ask for clarity as there are very few things that are universally the right decision and I get a giant ellipsis.
Typical Jared though.
You can be ass hurt all you want, but you are still wrong. If you want to drag this out, I can go there.
Q. WTF is a repeater?
A. A switch.Q. Does a switch require power?
A. Yes.Q. So does a repeater power?
A. Yes.Shall we move on? Or would you like to be all whiny bitch some more?
-
@wirestyle22 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
when you say "switch" it's synonymous with a lot of things that aren't required of a repeater, such as mac address tables.
WTF does this have to do with anything? You are now making shit up out of whole cloth.
-
lol, you guys are funny. thanks for all the posts.
-
@JaredBusch said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@wirestyle22 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
when you say "switch" it's synonymous with a lot of things that aren't required of a repeater, such as mac address tables.
WTF does this have to do with anything? You are now making shit up out of whole cloth.
Please shut the fuck up Jared. I have no idea why you gain pleasure from being an asshole. It amazes me that we have mutual friends.
-
@justin867 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
lol, you guys are funny. thanks for all the posts.
Anytime. I did quote your directly to keep those in context on my answers for you.
-
i could use this with my ruckus icx 7150 for this project.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01J66FQKC/ref=sspa_dk_detail_1?psc=1&pd_rd_i=B01J66FQKC -
Fiber to Ethernet converters also need power, but only at the ends. Which at least this way you have one cable and don't need to think about running electric to wherever the Ethernet would end up and the second Ethernet starts.
So half one half the other, but I'd go fiber before I daisy chain ethernet.
-
@justin867 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
i could use this with my ruckus icx 7150 for this project.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01J66FQKC/ref=sspa_dk_detail_1?psc=1&pd_rd_i=B01J66FQKCEven though it says "direct bury" I'd put conduit in and pull through that. I'd be pissed if somehow the fiber got cut.
Depending on where you are, you might be required by law to put conduit and cover the conduit with cement and to put a notice flag in with it.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Depending on where you are, you might be required by law to put conduit and cover the conduit with cement and to put a notice flag in with it.
You need to GTFO of NY...
-
@JaredBusch said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Depending on where you are, you might be required by law to put conduit and cover the conduit with cement and to put a notice flag in with it.
You need to GTFO of NY...
Tell me about it.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Even though it says "direct bury" I'd put conduit in and pull through that. I'd be pissed if somehow the fiber got cut.
While conduit is nice for re-pulling needs, anything that will cut the fiber, will also most likely cut the conduit. Assuming you trench it below 2' no one is going to be digging that deep with anything that will not also just rip the conduit in 2.
Been there, done that. Got that t-shirt.
Both as the person running the trencher and separately as the person who's shit was ripped up. -
Yeah, the conduit I've had to run was more for making sure people with shovels didn't go and chop through it.
The business owner loved having new plants (usually large ones) put in all the time. . .
-
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Depending on where you are, you might be required by law to put conduit and cover the conduit with cement and to put a notice flag in with it.
I doubt this. Rarely is this needed for anything normal... generally you only see this with pressurized gas/steam lines, sewege, or underground high voltage, below a certain grade. One of the reasons it's so important to call your local utilities before you dig anything. For low volt comm direct bury generally meets code, at least in NY.
Although I would still do a conduit for re-pulling purposes.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Which a small 8 port would work here, but is it worth putting in a switch and needing power there over just running fiber?
You can get decent five ports, too. Even cheaper.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@JaredBusch said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@wirestyle22 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Use a repeater
That is called a switch.....
A dumb switch, yeah
By definition a switch is not dumb. You are thinking of a hub, but unlike a switch, a hub cannot extend the length of the run. In order to "repeat", it can't be dumb. You must have the full switching capabilities, even with just two ports.
Now, to be completely pedantic, it's a bridge, not a switch, that is needed here. But no one makes two port bridges and hasn't for decades. Bridges always have at least three ports (these are common in VoIP phones), making them switches. A switch is just a multi-port (3+) bridge.
So technically, anything that can repeat is a bridge. Any bridge that is an option to use is a switch.
-
@JaredBusch said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Which a small 8 port would work here, but is it worth putting in a switch and needing power there over just running fiber?
Best Answer.
Because any thing else requires power.
Agreed, in this day and age, fiber is the way better answer to a man in the middle switch. That was the way to go for cheap installs 15+ years ago when fiber was hard to get and expensive. But not today.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@JaredBusch said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Which a small 8 port would work here, but is it worth putting in a switch and needing power there over just running fiber?
Best Answer.
Because any thing else requires power.
Regardless of what he is connecting? Because we have no idea what he is actually cabling for
Based on the length stated, we know it is Ethernet. You are correct that it wasn't explicitly stated, but all Ethernet information was given. So based on the info from the OP, we know that it is Ethernet, without power, over 100m.
So while fiber is not the correct answer to all possible solutions, it's the correct answer to all possible solutions for the situation at hand.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@wirestyle22 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@JaredBusch said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Which a small 8 port would work here, but is it worth putting in a switch and needing power there over just running fiber?
Best Answer.
Because any thing else requires power.
Regardless of what he is connecting?
To have 2 Ethernet cables that exceed the limit of the cable, you need a switch in-between the two cables. This repeats the signal.
But it's costly in that you need to have power wherever the first cable ends and the second cable begins. Plus you need to install a switch.
Yes, I understand. I said use a repeater at the top. Then JB was JB, even though when you say "switch" it's synonymous with a lot of things that aren't required of a repeater, such as mac address tables.
This is incorrect. Repeater, bridge, and switch are all 100% synonymous in this use case. All bridges on the market are switches, all Ethernet repeaters are bridges, therefore all Ethernet repeaters on the market are switches.
A switch does not imply a single thing that is not needed for a repeater to work. A MAC table is absolutely required. It is Ethernet that is being pushed past its cabling limit, Ethernet is layer 2, therefore a smart layer 2 device is a necessity to "repeat" the signal.
The idea of a dumb repeater is to boost analogue signals and can't work here. Signal strength is not the only factor creating the 100m limit.
-
For some historic reference, hubs used to be called repeaters, but because they repeating the same signal to all ports, not because they were used as signal boosters. That kind of repeater doesn't work here both because it doesn't fully address the signal degradation and because it is a violation of the network protocol.
