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.
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.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@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.
many tracerts will show you many more than 5 hops while navigating the internet.
-
@Dashrender said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@scottalanmiller said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@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.
many tracerts will show you many more than 5 hops while navigating the internet.
Yes, of course. But they only show routers, not switches. Switches are not considered a "hop". Traceroute cannot detect a switch.
-
No reason NOT to use fiber. For that distance, fiber is cheaper, faster, more reliable.
-
For 100m, singlemode fiber simplex is 12$. Transceiver are like 7€ each. You can’t beat it with copper.
-
@Francesco-Provino said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
No reason NOT to use fiber. For that distance, fiber is cheaper, faster, more reliable.
Not faster, same speed. But otherwise, yeah. Let to go wrong, just easy.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@Francesco-Provino said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
No reason NOT to use fiber. For that distance, fiber is cheaper, faster, more reliable.
Not faster, same speed. But otherwise, yeah. Let to go wrong, just easy.
Indeed, assuming same potential bandwidth of 1gb/s, while fibre will go around 0.1c faster than copper (contrary to popular belief, it doesn't go the speed of light, because it's still bouncing around all the way down, it isn't going straight like... like from a star or whatever), it still has to be changed from light to copper and back on either end.
Over long distances as well (and I mean quite a long way), the light itself can modulate slightly and depending on all sorts of things (lossless vs lossy with various other checks) in the end most setups you aren't gaining a whole lot unless you take advantage of either the ability to go longer distances (like the OP) which does increase speed because by the time you reach 150 meters with copper vs fibre, copper adds probably 50ms or so depending on the line.
So over 150m fibre may be slightly faster than copper, but not really significantly noticeable. Given how crappy a lot of cat 5/6 cable is, it might up being pretty noticeable at such a distance.
-
I’ve used an EdgeRouter X with a POE injector to power it because there was no power at the halfway point. If you have a spare injector from one of their access points or need to install on where the switch sits in the middle the EdgeRouter X has pass through POE on the last port.
