Anyone ever used anything like:

http://www.solwiseforum.co.uk/downlo...-jbox-idc8.jpg

If so, what were results like on data (100Mb)?
Reliable etc?
What about on voice?

(for background, I went to quote an exiting client on a IT fit for a new
office. The initial pleasant surprise was that it already had a full
structured cabling system in place - concentrated in a nice big
equipment cupboard. then I noticed in decommissioning the previous
owners kit some muppet had hacked through all the CAT5 cable about 2"
above where it went down through the concrete floor, with not quite
enough slack to get a patch panel in at a low level. Hence it means
either re-cable the lot (which seems like an expensive waste of effort),
or find a way to splice on extensions to the cut cables)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Anyone ever used anything like:

http://www.solwiseforum.co.uk/downlo...-jbox-idc8.jpg

If so, what were results like on data (100Mb)?
Reliable etc?
What about on voice?

(for background, I went to quote an exiting client on a IT fit for a new
office. The initial pleasant surprise was that it already had a full
structured cabling system in place - concentrated in a nice big equipment
cupboard. then I noticed in decommissioning the previous owners kit some
muppet had hacked through all the CAT5 cable about 2" above where it went
down through the concrete floor, with not quite enough slack to get a
patch panel in at a low level. Hence it means either re-cable the lot
(which seems like an expensive waste of effort), or find a way to splice
on extensions to the cut cables)


It does say "Cat 5E" so I would assume it is rated as per Cat5E, and is
therefore perfectly fine to use and should have no negative effects on 100Mb
ethernet. (I assume that putting in a coupler like this reduces the maximum
length of Cat5E you can use, but I wouldn't have thought it would affect you
significantly.)

We use Cat 5E rated couplers at work all over the places. These ones have
RJ-45 sockets at each end, so let you connect 2 existing Cat5 cables
together to make a longer one. Work a treat. Got them from Screwfix IIRC.

We did originally use non-Cat5 rated couplers. You wouldn't believe some of
the problems I've seen from using non-Cat5 rated couplers on 100Mb ethernet.
I once ended up missing a great party at the House of Blues in Chicago
having to fly to LA to help a customer out with some problems in their
network - turned out they have one of said non-Cat5 rated *******s
connecting two pieces of Cat 5E together. I had hoped never to have to go
to LA, now I hope never to have to go back.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:04:54 UTC, John Rumm
wrote:

Anyone ever used anything like:

http://www.solwiseforum.co.uk/downlo...-jbox-idc8.jpg

Yes. Got mine from CPC.

If so, what were results like on data (100Mb)?
Reliable etc?

Fine, as far as I can tell. I changed my mind about where the rack was
to go, some time after I'd laid the first few cables! I'm using them at
100Mb/s and have had no problems (but have done no detailed
measurements).

What about on voice?

Not tried. I used phone cable for that!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Piers Finlayson wrote:

It does say "Cat 5E" so I would assume it is rated as per Cat5E, and is
therefore perfectly fine to use and should have no negative effects on 100Mb
ethernet. (I assume that putting in a coupler like this reduces the maximum
length of Cat5E you can use, but I wouldn't have thought it would affect you
significantly.)

Length won't be a problem - can't see any run being over 20m

We use Cat 5E rated couplers at work all over the places. These ones have
RJ-45 sockets at each end, so let you connect 2 existing Cat5 cables
together to make a longer one. Work a treat. Got them from Screwfix IIRC.

Yeh, thought about those, but that would mean terminating all the cut
ends in RJ45s. It would be much simpler to punch them down to a some
form of IDC strip as in those couplers.

We did originally use non-Cat5 rated couplers. You wouldn't believe some of
the problems I've seen from using non-Cat5 rated couplers on 100Mb ethernet.
I once ended up missing a great party at the House of Blues in Chicago
having to fly to LA to help a customer out with some problems in their
network - turned out they have one of said non-Cat5 rated *******s
connecting two pieces of Cat 5E together. I had hoped never to have to go
to LA, now I hope never to have to go back.

Well, this gig is not quite so far to travel, but all the same I don't
want to be going there that often either!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Bob Eager wrote:

Anyone ever used anything like:

http://www.solwiseforum.co.uk/downlo...-jbox-idc8.jpg

Yes. Got mine from CPC.

If so, what were results like on data (100Mb)?
Reliable etc?

Fine, as far as I can tell. I changed my mind about where the rack was
to go, some time after I'd laid the first few cables! I'm using them at
100Mb/s and have had no problems (but have done no detailed
measurements).

OK, that is reassuring. Sounds like it is probably worth giving them a try.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sep 28, 5:04 pm, John Rumm wrote:
Anyone ever used anything like:

http://www.solwiseforum.co.uk/downlo...-jbox-idc8.jpg

If so, what were results like on data (100Mb)?
Reliable etc?

I raised a similar query earlier this year (http://tinyurl.com/25oha7)
following a reorganisation of my study (which houses a 24/7 server) -
I didn't want cables crossing the room from the existing network
socket and so, with the carpet up, I extended the the cable to a new
socket on the other side of the room and used a coupler inside the old
backbox with a blanking plate. Another advantage doing it this way is
that I can revert the old socket back to its former use with ease.

It worked, but still not fully relaxed about it (I'm fussy about these
things) I ran some tests with 'iperf' and, from my notes at the time,
saw that it was quite happy transferring UDP packets at 80mbps (it's a
Full Duplex Fast Ethernet LAN) with 0% packet loss and this was
through ~7 plug/socket interfaces, a router and a switch. For some
reason my notes don't mention anything 80mbps so either I ran short
of time, got bored, or higher was not possible. Either way the figures
suggest there are no grounds for concern.

Mathew

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Anyone ever used anything like:

http://www.solwiseforum.co.uk/downlo...-jbox-idc8.jpg

If so, what were results like on data (100Mb)?
Reliable etc?
What about on voice?

They're absolutely fine. I buy them from Solwise and used them for pretty
much the same reason you're wanting to use them.

Tested using my Fluke lan meter and the cables I used them on passed with no
problems.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Anyone ever used anything like:

http://www.solwiseforum.co.uk/downlo...-jbox-idc8.jpg

If so, what were results like on data (100Mb)?
Reliable etc?
What about on voice?

(for background, I went to quote an exiting client on a IT fit for a new
office. The initial pleasant surprise was that it already had a full
structured cabling system in place - concentrated in a nice big equipment
cupboard. then I noticed in decommissioning the previous owners kit some
muppet had hacked through all the CAT5 cable about 2" above where it went
down through the concrete floor, with not quite enough slack to get a
patch panel in at a low level. Hence it means either re-cable the lot
(which seems like an expensive waste of effort), or find a way to splice
on extensions to the cut cables)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/


I'm pretty sure that this is allowed for in the cat5e spec - it's known as a
consolidation point. I'll leave it up to you to Google for a definitive
answer, but provided the patch-panel to outlet is no more than 90m, and the
external patching is = 10m in total, it should be in spec. For voice, you
could probably dispense with this altogether and just twist the ends
together (use sellotape to insulate ;-)
HTTH,
Bramble-stick

Bramble-Stick wrote:

For voice, you
could probably dispense with this altogether and just twist the ends
together (use sellotape to insulate ;-)

Since this will be a structured system (i.e. won't choose what sockets
do what until later), I might give that a miss ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 2007-09-28 17:04:54 +0100, John Rumm said:


Anyone ever used anything like:

http://www.solwiseforum.co.uk/downlo...-jbox-idc8.jpg

If so, what were results like on data (100Mb)?
Reliable etc?
What about on voice?

(for background, I went to quote an exiting client on a IT fit for a
new office. The initial pleasant surprise was that it already had a
full structured cabling system in place - concentrated in a nice big
equipment cupboard. then I noticed in decommissioning the previous
owners kit some muppet had hacked through all the CAT5 cable about 2"
above where it went down through the concrete floor, with not quite
enough slack to get a patch panel in at a low level. Hence it means
either re-cable the lot (which seems like an expensive waste of
effort), or find a way to splice on extensions to the cut cables)

Yes these work well - I've used them in a few places in the house where
it was impossible to run a single length of cable through.

I also used some Krone consolidation points, which are effectively
pretty much the same thing except with multiple terminations in a
larger box. You might want to look at these as well. There is
basically a box with a frame inside, and modules are clipped onto that.
Modules are available to connect 10 telephone pairs and IIRC 4 CAT5e
cables. The telephone ones are generally used with a 10 or 20
pair cable on one side and then normal 2 pair cables to extensions from
there. In the house I used several of these boxes in different
places and ran a bundle of CAT5es and 2 10 pair phone cables to each.
Then as I decorate rooms and fit outlets, they can be cabled back a
short distance rather than having to home run the whole lot to the
equipment cabinet each time.

In effect these are like a patch panel. I've tested them at gigabit
with streamed UDP packets, counting losses and there was no issue with
introducing the transition point.

Why not use ethernet over powerline ?


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Anyone ever used anything like:

http://www.solwiseforum.co.uk/downlo...-jbox-idc8.jpg

If so, what were results like on data (100Mb)?
Reliable etc?
What about on voice?

(for background, I went to quote an exiting client on a IT fit for a new
office. The initial pleasant surprise was that it already had a full
structured cabling system in place - concentrated in a nice big equipment
cupboard. then I noticed in decommissioning the previous owners kit some
muppet had hacked through all the CAT5 cable about 2" above where it went
down through the concrete floor, with not quite enough slack to get a
patch panel in at a low level. Hence it means either re-cable the lot
(which seems like an expensive waste of effort), or find a way to splice
on extensions to the cut cables)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\==============

==================================================/

kd wrote:

Why not use ethernet over powerline ?

That and wireless have a place, but probably not for this application.
We are probably talking about 16 - 20 ports in total; for which a good
proportion of the wiring and sockets are already in place in sectioned
trunking (the building formally was a branch of Woolwhich). Using power
line would mean either lots of mains connections required (i.e. just
shifting the problem) or a messy need for extra switches local to desks
etc. These connections will also be need to carry voice connections from
the digital PBX to the desks as well - so joining to a reusing the
existing cables is my favoured approach if possible.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Andy Hall wrote:

I also used some Krone consolidation points, which are effectively
pretty much the same thing except with multiple terminations in a larger
box. You might want to look at these as well. There is

Yup will do. Part of the attraction of the small boxes was the low
physical space requirements.

basically a box with a frame inside, and modules are clipped onto that.
Modules are available to connect 10 telephone pairs and IIRC 4 CAT5e
cables. The telephone ones are generally used with a 10 or 20 pair
cable on one side and then normal 2 pair cables to extensions from

ok, won't actually need phone pairs as such (will use cat5 for both).

In effect these are like a patch panel. I've tested them at gigabit
with streamed UDP packets, counting losses and there was no issue with
introducing the transition point.

Good. Seems like the consensus is these work ok then. Just thought I had
better check before wading in with them and finding out the hard way. ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
says...

Anyone ever used anything like:

http://www.solwiseforum.co.uk/downlo...-jbox-idc8.jpg

If so, what were results like on data (100Mb)?
Reliable etc?
What about on voice?

(for background, I went to quote an exiting client on a IT fit for a new
office. The initial pleasant surprise was that it already had a full
structured cabling system in place - concentrated in a nice big
equipment cupboard. then I noticed in decommissioning the previous
owners kit some muppet had hacked through all the CAT5 cable about 2"
above where it went down through the concrete floor, with not quite
enough slack to get a patch panel in at a low level. Hence it means
either re-cable the lot (which seems like an expensive waste of effort),
or find a way to splice on extensions to the cut cables)



Or you could use jelly crimps on each individual wire, less neat, but
maybe quicker...
--
Alex Threlfall
Cyberprog New Media
www.cyberprog.net
tel - 0870 446 0789
fax - 0870 446 1789

Alex Threlfall wrote:

Or you could use jelly crimps on each individual wire, less neat, but
maybe quicker...

I did actually have to do that once... seemed like rather a bodge, but
to be fair it did work ok (although that may haver only been a 10Mb
network). Something punchdown should be a bit quicker though.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/