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...
-
@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.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
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.
Be careful or Apple might step in with a "Hold my Beer" moment and make us all SMH.
-
If you try to find products sold as "Ethernet repeaters", what you tend to find are either switches that just aren't labeled as switches, or more commonly, bridges to other media like DSL which is the "same" as using fiber - that is to drop copper Ethernet and use something else for the long haul and converting back at the end.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
If you try to find products sold as "Ethernet repeaters", what you tend to find are either switches that just aren't labeled as switches, or more commonly, bridges to other media like DSL which is the "same" as using fiber - that is to drop copper Ethernet and use something else for the long haul and converting back at the end.
Like this ...
I used a black box like that at a previous employer that had dry loops between offices across town from the phone company in order to have an off premise extension. When they wanted to extend the network, but nothing was reasonable, I bought a set of these (not this model) and made my own DSL extension across the OPX circuit.
-
@Dashrender and I have been discussing this offline and I think there is a missing piece that people don't remember and that is if we use a hub (aka repeater) we are in CSMA/CD networking, not Switched Ethernet which is what all of us are used to since the late 1990s. This changes everything about the network. Modern Ethernet cannot have a hub (repeater), it's not allowed (nor are they made.)
But in the old days, we had them. But there are still length limitations of the segments (but not 100m) caused by collision detection algorithms. Exactly how this works is mired in myth so it is hard to discover the exact implications. But you can't simply extend CSMA/CD indefinitely as the cabling has to support the collision detection time, in addition to withstanding the signal degradation over distances. And, of course, dealing with impedance.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
But in the old days, we had them. But there are still length limitations of the segments (but not 100m) caused by collision detection algorithms. Exactly how this works is mired in myth so it is hard to discover the exact implications. But you can't simply extend CSMA/CD indefinitely as the cabling has to support the collision detection time, in addition to withstanding the signal degradation over distances. And, of course, dealing with impedance.
Yeah. I've heard interviews with Engineers that design the chips. I think it was at 1gbps there is always more noise than signal. Yet they have 10gbps, 40gbps, and 100gbps on copper working. It's crazy what they're able to do, even if it is very distance limited at the highest speeds.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@Dashrender and I have been discussing this offline and I think there is a missing piece that people don't remember and that is if we use a hub (aka repeater) we are in CSMA/CD networking, not Switched Ethernet which is what all of us are used to since the late 1990s. This changes everything about the network. Modern Ethernet cannot have a hub (repeater), it's not allowed (nor are they made.)
But in the old days, we had them. But there are still length limitations of the segments (but not 100m) caused by collision detection algorithms. Exactly how this works is mired in myth so it is hard to discover the exact implications. But you can't simply extend CSMA/CD indefinitely as the cabling has to support the collision detection time, in addition to withstanding the signal degradation over distances. And, of course, dealing with impedance.
The last thing I recall about stringing switches together before the latency would kill you was 5... you could have 5 segments device - switch - switch - switch - switch - device and you'd still be OK.
This likely plays into the collision/timing thing Scott and I were talking about.
Of course I'm not sure how the internet at large completely defeats this. i.e. why doesn't ethernet timeout while waiting on a response? or is there actually one by the local router while the router is waiting on the internet traffic itself?
-
@Dashrender said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@scottalanmiller said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@Dashrender and I have been discussing this offline and I think there is a missing piece that people don't remember and that is if we use a hub (aka repeater) we are in CSMA/CD networking, not Switched Ethernet which is what all of us are used to since the late 1990s. This changes everything about the network. Modern Ethernet cannot have a hub (repeater), it's not allowed (nor are they made.)
But in the old days, we had them. But there are still length limitations of the segments (but not 100m) caused by collision detection algorithms. Exactly how this works is mired in myth so it is hard to discover the exact implications. But you can't simply extend CSMA/CD indefinitely as the cabling has to support the collision detection time, in addition to withstanding the signal degradation over distances. And, of course, dealing with impedance.
The last thing I recall about stringing switches together before the latency would kill you was 5... you could have 5 segments device - switch - switch - switch - switch - device and you'd still be OK.
That's the 5 hop rule. Ethernet has always been like that. I never knew the reason why, but you always need a router at 5 hops.
-
@Dashrender said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@scottalanmiller said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@Dashrender and I have been discussing this offline and I think there is a missing piece that people don't remember and that is if we use a hub (aka repeater) we are in CSMA/CD networking, not Switched Ethernet which is what all of us are used to since the late 1990s. This changes everything about the network. Modern Ethernet cannot have a hub (repeater), it's not allowed (nor are they made.)
But in the old days, we had them. But there are still length limitations of the segments (but not 100m) caused by collision detection algorithms. Exactly how this works is mired in myth so it is hard to discover the exact implications. But you can't simply extend CSMA/CD indefinitely as the cabling has to support the collision detection time, in addition to withstanding the signal degradation over distances. And, of course, dealing with impedance.
The last thing I recall about stringing switches together before the latency would kill you was 5... you could have 5 segments device - switch - switch - switch - switch - device and you'd still be OK.
This likely plays into the collision/timing thing Scott and I were talking about.
Of course I'm not sure how the internet at large completely defeats this. i.e. why doesn't ethernet timeout while waiting on a response? or is there actually one by the local router while the router is waiting on the internet traffic itself?
Strong switches is bad, but not a killer. Switches are fast today. You could have 20 and not cause "issues." But you'd notice.
-
@travisdh1 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@Dashrender said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@scottalanmiller said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@Dashrender and I have been discussing this offline and I think there is a missing piece that people don't remember and that is if we use a hub (aka repeater) we are in CSMA/CD networking, not Switched Ethernet which is what all of us are used to since the late 1990s. This changes everything about the network. Modern Ethernet cannot have a hub (repeater), it's not allowed (nor are they made.)
But in the old days, we had them. But there are still length limitations of the segments (but not 100m) caused by collision detection algorithms. Exactly how this works is mired in myth so it is hard to discover the exact implications. But you can't simply extend CSMA/CD indefinitely as the cabling has to support the collision detection time, in addition to withstanding the signal degradation over distances. And, of course, dealing with impedance.
The last thing I recall about stringing switches together before the latency would kill you was 5... you could have 5 segments device - switch - switch - switch - switch - device and you'd still be OK.
That's the 5 hop rule. Ethernet has always been like that. I never knew the reason why, but you always need a router at 5 hops.
The hop rule is for routers, not switches. Router hops are drastically slower than switches.
