On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:10:28 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 03:36:52 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

SNIPP
Then you don't get what noisy lines are all about, and what can create
them. Interference. Also just pulling too hard on Ethernet cabling can
stretch the wire messing things up.

So tells us of a documented case in which "pulling too hard on the
cable" or "interference" reduced the transfer rate for 1000BaseTX to 2
mb/sec. You're saying "can happen". So show us when it _did_ happen
or you're just spreading FUD.

If you pull too hard on a gigabit cable and damage the cable it will
NOT autonegotiate down.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Depends on the damage. I just
replaced a network cable that was consistently resulting in
autonegotiation from 1 gig to 100 meg and then sometimes failing the
100 meg. It had a lot more problems than "being pulled too hard"
though.

I have seen it slow the network down SIGNIFICANTLY due to dropped
packets and retries - to well below a 2mb equivalent. Any one
conductor suffering damage in Gb ethernet WILL slow the network down.
Or kill it DEAD (at least the one segment)

Ok, so you have numbers to present that show this? Please show the
actual numbers.

A kinked Cat5E cable will fail the quality test for GB ethernet.
Running the cables parallel to a high current AC conductor will do the
same.

I have tried experiments in this regard and Fluke does not seem to be
able to detect the high current conductor.

It won't slow down the bit-rate - but it will definitely cause
deterioration in the service via lost packets and retries, which
translates to a slower EFFECTIVE bit-rate.
SNIPPPPP

How much slower, based on actual evidence?

When talking 10BT /100BT, the troublesome auto-negotiation protocols
COULD downgrade a 100BT to 10BT, and often provided better throughput
on a reliable 10BT connection than on a flakey 100BT - but 10BT is "so
nineties"

So you say that the autonegotiation protocols for 100baseT can reduce
to 10 but somehow the autonegotiation protocols for gigabit can't
reduce to 100. Why would that be?

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in news

Funnier part... finding this pipe under the pad distracted me so much
that I forgot that I had already figured all this out. :-)
I can't use that path because it I would have to take a hard right
turn and then another left to go around the end of the septic system's
leach field. I don't like the prospect of pulling #6 through those
bends on a 100'+ run.

On the far edge of the driveway is a row of 80ft Poplars. Because I
don't want to dig through their major roots, I can't use a ditch-witch
to trench that path.

At the corner of the garage where I intended to start the underground
conduit, there is an expansion joint in the parking area pad with
asphalt expansion joint filler. The path along that joint is far
enough away from the leach bed and far enough from the tree roots that
I can go straight back along that expansion joint.
All I have to do is rent a concrete saw and make one cut a few inches
from the existing expansion joint and then fill it back in with
Quickcrete when I'm done laying the conduit.

That will be easier than hand digging a trench around 3-4" tree roots
and trying to weave the conduit over and under them.



My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to the
garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be worth
digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a punch down
connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you take
certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you must go
close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded pipe. I
didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I didn't research
them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.

I am Cisco certified, it is not recommended.


60 cycle interference?

In is unsafe to take a chance with high voltage crossing over to a
consumer device. There is also the electromagnetic effect, especially
on an A/C system with its varying loads. On systems with variable
speed drives there are multiple problems, and it is also a Code
violation in most places. It is not even recommended to mix land line
phone lines in the walls, or conduit, and any box.

Then I suppose they don't really make these things.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Carlon-2-Gang-Dual-Voltage-Box-and-Bracket-SC200DVR/100146034


Yes they do, for a phone line and a cable TV hookup on one side and
power on the other side. The EMI On 110 has very little effect on
those items. As to the Satellite TV guys they would refuse to do it
that way, they are trained to keep them separate on Direct TV.

If only Direct TV installers were sharp enough to get out of bed in
the morning.


EMI isn't the issue, here. It's safety and that isn't a big deal
in-wall, either.

If you run the power and other lines neatly together it is your
problem.

It's not a problem.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.

I don't believe that at all. Antenna diversity and MIMO solve these
problems in all but the most dense living situations.

Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

There is such a thing as "fast enough". We have exactly one wired link
in our house (that the cable company put in), basically because
there's no point in adding any more.

Wait till you see a decent fiber optic system and the possible speeds
and want to run 4k TV on wire for viewing new movies, especially on
more than one TV at a time. with full sound, using limited compression
and loss of musical tones.

Already done. Works fine.

Of course with the way my ears are going.

Audio bandwidth is miniscule.

Music, not voice.

Um, music *is* audio. Even *uncompressed* digital music is only
1.5Mb/channel. I repeat - miniscule bandwidth.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:19:36 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:25:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.
Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

He is right. Especially when you find out how easy it is to hack WIFI
to the homes and businesses around you, especially on those that
haven't a clue about security. Years ago I used to connect up and
print out messages on their printers to clue them in.

Heavens! Someone will hack my television viewing! Oh, the
humanity!!!

They will and can hack your smart TV software or app's.

So they can then watch my Netflix, too?!!! I'm TERRIFIED, I tell ya'.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:56:57 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

Clare--I want to make something clear. I am having a problem with the
fellow who is asserting that if you run a CAT6 cable to your garage
you end up with fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers
and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the
dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living
together . . .

I have never known _you_ to give advice regarding network that was
other than sane and straightforward.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

SNIPP

If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.

Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
wire.

8 strands of barbed wire I assume?????

Yep.

https://www.wband.com/2002/05/wideba...onal-magazine/

IIRC Broadcomm was demonstrating their interface chips--they did a
similar one with 100baseT a few years earlier.

It will NOT downgrade it's speed as required to maintain connectivity.
Instead it will fail and retry, and fail again, untill it manages to
successfully pass the packet. This will NOT result in gagabit speeds -
likely even less than 10BT speeds.

I was having trouble with the computer I am using right now.

Periodically Internet access would slow to a crawl. Speed was all
over the map. The network connection would drop from gigabit to 100
mbit. Speedtest would show speeds as low as 5 Mb/sec but usually more
like 50 and sometimes back up to 300 (limit here is my ISP).

Finally tracked down the problem. There was a patch cable that had
gotten walked on, had furniture run over it, been gnawed by rodents,
and was in a few spots there was bare wire poking out,. Sometimes it
was _still_ carrying 300+ Mb/sec.

It's not as fragile as people think it is, at least not when it's
being run in a typical residential environment where runs are,
compared to what the spec allows, quite short. If you're working
right at the limit of what it can do, where signal attenuation is
piled on top of everything else it's another story, but that doesn't
typically happen in somebody's house.

SNIPP
I also still have a few routers, switches and stuff, Cisco commercial
products, wanna buy them and get them off my hands?


I've got gigabit stuff that's technically obsolete too - but would
still make someone a DANDY network

About $20,000 worth, at the very minimum when new - and it is NOT
CISCO.

The devil in me wants to say "good decision".

I suspect that they are well and truly obsolete.

In any case, nobody is going to be running a T1 from their house to
their garage on a CAT6 cable. What's going to be running on it, in
2018, is gigabit Ethernet.


Or even. more commonly, a 100Mb connection (still WAY faster than
most internets)

A couple of years ago I'd agree, but at this point any computer you
buy has gigabit and the local Best Buy doesn't even have any switches
that don't support gigabit--the cheapest is a 5 port for 30 bucks.

Of course not, the switchgear costs alone would be prohibitive, plus
the cabling. But he could run fiber optics and never have any of the
problems associated with hard wire systems.

What would justify the expense?

The only thing that would justify fiber to the shop is EMI issues -
and they would have to be BAD - unless you just happen to have a bunch
of fiber net equipment gathering dust in the "sandbox" and you want to
play - - - -

Yep.

If my creds are so important to you then you can call Cisco and see
what all I was certified for at the time. I am not keeping my certs
updated because I am retired. Get it?

And the equipment is leaving you WAY behind as well.
I never got CISCO certified because you could go broke just
maintaining currency with their new product.

I did not say "creds", I said "cred". You're topping it the expert
here when it's clear that you are far from up to date.

I'm basically "retired" for a year and I know I'm already far from up
to date with current technology.

I'm not retired but I've been away from the networking world for a
long time, still, knowing what a CAT6 cable actually looks like when
you cut it open is pretty basic. Where I get lost these days is with
all the wifi variants and the 10gig stuff.

I gave up trying to keep up 5 years
ago when I offloaded the network management to a third party
consultant - who also prooved to be less than current and has now been
replaced by a larger and more proficient network consulting/management
firm. I wouldn't know where to start with the current setup in the new
insurance office facility. It's all enterprise grade stuff surplussed
out from Blackberry's downsizing - well over 1/4 million dollars worth
of network switches, routers, servers etc

The "obsolete" gear I have sitting here is what came out of the 2
offices when they moved in together in the new facility - virtually
all less than 5 years old

SNIPP
Explaining or rationalizing why it is important to do it right in the
first place.

What is "right" and what is adequate to the task are two different
things.

Overkill in IT installations is RAMPANT - particularly for home
installs.

Precisely my point. For this situation I would either use wifi to
begin with or run a direct-burial cable (note that in my location the
town will be on you if you run an overhead cable).

SNIPP

Well that's all well and good. So how much measured degradtation have
you experiences in wires run from people's houses to people's garages
carrying gigabit?

I didn't do houses expect for friends. But the ground field for the
bldg is a big issue in such cases which I addressed in another post.

Apples - oranges - Turnips.

Yep. Spreading FUD. "You're gonna get electrocuted because you ran a
CAT6 cable to the garage". So why don't you get electrocuted when you
plug in the hedge trimmer to the outlet in that same garage?

Yeah, you addressed it but didn't give any reason to believe that you
are familiar with transformer-coupled network interfaces which are
standard with modern Ethernet but apparently didn't exist the last
time you dealt with Ethernet.

If I gave you my full resume from all the years I've worked you would
probably call me a liar too. Oh well. what's a guy to do?

I don't care about your damned resume. You remind me of the mainframe
types who have been in IT for 50 years but can't figure out how to
work Excel.

About 27 years and I'm already a dynasaur - and I've never been
involved with anything outside the IBM compatible PC world, except for
the old 6809 Tandy world. (a bit of Banyan Vines, a bit of Unix Xenix,
a bit of Nohell, a touch of OS9 on the 6809 Trash80) - but
functionally illiterate outside the MS DOS / Windows world.

It's hard to keep up with all of it. The sad thing is that the kids
running it today seem to be lost. I suspect that there's going to
come a time when I bring my cable analyzer to work and show the IT
people what's wrong with their damned network.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 12:55:16 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 04:14:30 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

Geezus, you don't even know what the Hell you're looking at. That is
a POWER OVER ETHERNET extender. What it _amplifies_ is the _power_.
The Ethernet signal is transferred by a switch. If you don't know
what a "switch" is in this context you really should learn before
making more of a fool of yourself. That device has an internal 2 port
switch.

Well Mr. Bright boy, when the power dies, the signal dies with it one
wired systems.

Is it your belief that the normal configuration of twisted pair
Ethernet involves powering network devices over Ethernet?

All wire is is an elongated resistor that carries power. Try running
super long extension cords and watch the voltage drop.

One can only have so many repeaters in line, know why?
Those all tell you your signal now can reach 600 hundred feet. Twice
what you said was possible.

And you have a whole lot of learning to do regarding microwave's and I
am not about to waste further time with you on this.

Yeah, the FCC and I are idiots and you're the genius.

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 15:14:30 -0600, Idlehands
wrote:

On 2018-06-03 10:25 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 12:09:54 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 09:35:23 -0600, Idlehands
wrote:

On 2018-06-03 12:11 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

snip

There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.

Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
in the microwave range.

We
have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
miles.

A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
little to no problems.

Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
a very large property.

I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here.

There are a number of extenders on the market that extend Cat6 POE over
long distances and I have used a number of them successfully.

http://www.veracityglobal.com/produc...e-devices.aspx

https://ethernetextender.com/cat6-repeater/

That's POWER OVER ETHERNET. And those extenders use a switch to
extend the span of the Ethernet. They don't "boost the signal", they
take packets in, adjust the address for the new segment, and send
packets out.

Looking further, some of them package the Ethernet packets in some
other signalling to get extended range, and if you look at the specs,
they kill the crap out of performance.

I didn't say that it wasn't possible to make some kind of device that
is not an Ethernet device that can transport Ethernet packets. If you
are willing to accept latency and low bandwidth you can carry Ethernet
packets on a piece of paper in your pocket. But doing so is not
compliant with any of the Ethernet standards so it is not Ethernet.

Further, ALL of the things you point to create a new segment.

You really should learn how things work before you start trying to
prove that somebody is wrong.



Capable of sending real time HD video at 30fps without latency, I do
know how things work and use them on a daily basis.

You should learn new technology before making your grand generalizations
about how things are.

What point do you believe you are making?

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 15:12:04 -0600, Idlehands
wrote:

On 2018-06-03 10:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 09:35:23 -0600, Idlehands
wrote:

On 2018-06-03 12:11 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

snip

There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.

Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
in the microwave range.

We
have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
miles.

A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
little to no problems.

Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
a very large property.

I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here.

There are a number of extenders on the market that extend Cat6 POE over
long distances and I have used a number of them successfully.

http://www.veracityglobal.com/produc...e-devices.aspx

https://ethernetextender.com/cat6-repeater/

That's POWER OVER ETHERNET. And those extenders use a switch to
extend the span of the Ethernet. They don't "boost the signal", they
take packets in, adjust the address for the new segment, and send
packets out.


Data and power, no switch in the line, just the extender which powers
the POE device and sends data and are transparent to the data.

Please tell us what you believe "switch" to mean.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:35:05 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:08:36 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:
SNIPP
My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.
Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

He is right. Especially when you find out how easy it is to hack WIFI
to the homes and businesses around you, especially on those that
haven't a clue about security. Years ago I used to connect up and
print out messages on their printers to clue them in.

Wired is faster, but how fast do you NEED? I see no evidence of a
trend to wired for residential use.

As for ease of hacking, this is mostly FUD. Has any data breach
causing economic harm to anyone _ever_ been traced to a wifi hack?

Yes. Using public WIFI - at coffee shop or motel, has compromized
several of my customers' laptops, at least one corporate bank account,
and numerous websites when the owner logged onto his server to manage
his website. (Huge damage to the websites -significant cost involved)

We KNOW it was wifi hacks in at least 3 of the cases because of where
the hacker got in from and where the customer was at the time
(Texas/Mexico , Indonesia, and Thailand)

Thank you. Someone with actual facts.

Most data thieves don't go after Joe Homeowner or Fred's Pizza. They
go after somebody who is likely to have enough in assets accessible by
computer to actually be worth stealing.

That's "data thieves", but malicious "code kiddies"are another
altogether. They derive "street cred" from their hacks, and when they
get credit card information and passwords, hang on!!!!! Thankfully the
banks take the hit instead of the customer.


I have NO IDEA how anyone got my bank card number and password - it is
ONLY used as identification and my home bank branch (only once at the
ATM) and to log into my electronic banking application (which I had
only done TWICE before someone successfully used it in Mexico and
tried to use it 3 more times )
They got $600 out of my account oin the "trial run" then tried for
several thousand (unsuccessfully, thanks to my bank's security
settings) over the next couple of days. Cost the bank -not me - and
necessitated getting a new bank access card.
Not sure WIFI was involved on this one as I only accessed the
application ONCE on wifi - and that was on my secured home wifi - the
card has never been outside of Canada - muchless been used or
referenced outside of Canada - but to have both my card number and my
14 digit very high security password it had to have been "sniffed"
somewhere.

How they got the password is the real question.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:14:42 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 23:29:12 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 10:40 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.

I don't believe that at all. Antenna diversity and MIMO solve these
problems in all but the most dense living situations.

Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

What IS driving some people back to wired connections is SECURITY.
There are facilities where NO WIRELESS connections are allowed for
just that reason.

One time back in the '80s I looked into what was needed to access the
government's supercomputers for my employer. We realized after a
while that we could probably get our own for less than that would cost
us. Definitely no wireless there. Everything fiber, Faraday cage
around the room in which the access point would be located, specially
certified terminals.

On the other hand my employer doesn't have any problem with
wifi--presumably they've done their homework on setting it up--half a
floor of the building is data security and it's a _big_ building. But
there the scenario of someone sitting in the parking lot sniffing
doesn't happen--the lot is badge-access gated with the closest point
from the building to the fence is over a hundred feet and that fence
is on a four-lane with no parking allowed.

There is such a thing as "fast enough". We have exactly one wired link
in our house (that the cable company put in), basically because
there's no point in adding any more.



Add 30ft. to equation and it's not fast enough anymore.
I stream video to my garage/shop and it's not fast enough over wifi from
20ft. away.
We have the fastest internet in town and the fastest/fastest router.
When I ran Ethernet from the router to the garage through a wifi
extender, all of a sudden I'm getting 400mbps when I was only getting
50-100 from the router.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.

I don't believe that at all. Antenna diversity and MIMO solve these
problems in all but the most dense living situations.

Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

There is such a thing as "fast enough". We have exactly one wired link
in our house (that the cable company put in), basically because
there's no point in adding any more.

Wait till you see a decent fiber optic system and the possible speeds
and want to run 4k TV on wire for viewing new movies, especially on
more than one TV at a time. with full sound, using limited compression
and loss of musical tones.

Already done. Works fine.

Of course with the way my ears are going.

Audio bandwidth is miniscule.

Music, not voice.

And you think you have credibility.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in news

Funnier part... finding this pipe under the pad distracted me so much
that I forgot that I had already figured all this out. :-)
I can't use that path because it I would have to take a hard right
turn and then another left to go around the end of the septic system's
leach field. I don't like the prospect of pulling #6 through those
bends on a 100'+ run.

On the far edge of the driveway is a row of 80ft Poplars. Because I
don't want to dig through their major roots, I can't use a ditch-witch
to trench that path.

At the corner of the garage where I intended to start the underground
conduit, there is an expansion joint in the parking area pad with
asphalt expansion joint filler. The path along that joint is far
enough away from the leach bed and far enough from the tree roots that
I can go straight back along that expansion joint.
All I have to do is rent a concrete saw and make one cut a few inches
from the existing expansion joint and then fill it back in with
Quickcrete when I'm done laying the conduit.

That will be easier than hand digging a trench around 3-4" tree roots
and trying to weave the conduit over and under them.



My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to the
garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be worth
digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a punch down
connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you take
certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you must go
close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded pipe. I
didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I didn't research
them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.

I am Cisco certified, it is not recommended.


60 cycle interference?

In is unsafe to take a chance with high voltage crossing over to a
consumer device. There is also the electromagnetic effect, especially
on an A/C system with its varying loads. On systems with variable
speed drives there are multiple problems, and it is also a Code
violation in most places. It is not even recommended to mix land line
phone lines in the walls, or conduit, and any box.

Then I suppose they don't really make these things.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Carlon-2-Gang-Dual-Voltage-Box-and-Bracket-SC200DVR/100146034


Yes they do, for a phone line and a cable TV hookup on one side and
power on the other side. The EMI On 110 has very little effect on
those items. As to the Satellite TV guys they would refuse to do it
that way, they are trained to keep them separate on Direct TV.

If only Direct TV installers were sharp enough to get out of bed in
the morning.


EMI isn't the issue, here. It's safety and that isn't a big deal
in-wall, either.

If you run the power and other lines neatly together it is your
problem.

It's not a problem.

I have run across EMI issues in the past when it was least expected.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in news

Funnier part... finding this pipe under the pad distracted me so much
that I forgot that I had already figured all this out. :-)
I can't use that path because it I would have to take a hard right
turn and then another left to go around the end of the septic system's
leach field. I don't like the prospect of pulling #6 through those
bends on a 100'+ run.

On the far edge of the driveway is a row of 80ft Poplars. Because I
don't want to dig through their major roots, I can't use a ditch-witch
to trench that path.

At the corner of the garage where I intended to start the underground
conduit, there is an expansion joint in the parking area pad with
asphalt expansion joint filler. The path along that joint is far
enough away from the leach bed and far enough from the tree roots that
I can go straight back along that expansion joint.
All I have to do is rent a concrete saw and make one cut a few inches
from the existing expansion joint and then fill it back in with
Quickcrete when I'm done laying the conduit.

That will be easier than hand digging a trench around 3-4" tree roots
and trying to weave the conduit over and under them.



My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to the
garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be worth
digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a punch down
connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you take
certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you must go
close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded pipe. I
didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I didn't research
them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.

I am Cisco certified, it is not recommended.


60 cycle interference?

In is unsafe to take a chance with high voltage crossing over to a
consumer device. There is also the electromagnetic effect, especially
on an A/C system with its varying loads. On systems with variable
speed drives there are multiple problems, and it is also a Code
violation in most places. It is not even recommended to mix land line
phone lines in the walls, or conduit, and any box.

Then I suppose they don't really make these things.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Carlon-2-Gang-Dual-Voltage-Box-and-Bracket-SC200DVR/100146034


Yes they do, for a phone line and a cable TV hookup on one side and
power on the other side. The EMI On 110 has very little effect on
those items. As to the Satellite TV guys they would refuse to do it
that way, they are trained to keep them separate on Direct TV.

If only Direct TV installers were sharp enough to get out of bed in
the morning.


EMI isn't the issue, here. It's safety and that isn't a big deal
in-wall, either.

If you run the power and other lines neatly together it is your
problem.

It's not a problem.

I have run across EMI issues in the past when it was least expected.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in news

Funnier part... finding this pipe under the pad distracted me so much
that I forgot that I had already figured all this out. :-)
I can't use that path because it I would have to take a hard right
turn and then another left to go around the end of the septic system's
leach field. I don't like the prospect of pulling #6 through those
bends on a 100'+ run.

On the far edge of the driveway is a row of 80ft Poplars. Because I
don't want to dig through their major roots, I can't use a ditch-witch
to trench that path.

At the corner of the garage where I intended to start the underground
conduit, there is an expansion joint in the parking area pad with
asphalt expansion joint filler. The path along that joint is far
enough away from the leach bed and far enough from the tree roots that
I can go straight back along that expansion joint.
All I have to do is rent a concrete saw and make one cut a few inches
from the existing expansion joint and then fill it back in with
Quickcrete when I'm done laying the conduit.

That will be easier than hand digging a trench around 3-4" tree roots
and trying to weave the conduit over and under them.



My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to the
garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be worth
digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a punch down
connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you take
certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you must go
close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded pipe. I
didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I didn't research
them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.

I am Cisco certified, it is not recommended.


60 cycle interference?

In is unsafe to take a chance with high voltage crossing over to a
consumer device. There is also the electromagnetic effect, especially
on an A/C system with its varying loads. On systems with variable
speed drives there are multiple problems, and it is also a Code
violation in most places. It is not even recommended to mix land line
phone lines in the walls, or conduit, and any box.

Then I suppose they don't really make these things.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Carlon-2-Gang-Dual-Voltage-Box-and-Bracket-SC200DVR/100146034


Yes they do, for a phone line and a cable TV hookup on one side and
power on the other side. The EMI On 110 has very little effect on
those items. As to the Satellite TV guys they would refuse to do it
that way, they are trained to keep them separate on Direct TV.

If only Direct TV installers were sharp enough to get out of bed in
the morning.


EMI isn't the issue, here. It's safety and that isn't a big deal
in-wall, either.

If you run the power and other lines neatly together it is your
problem.

It's not a problem.

I have run across EMI issues in the past when it was least expected.

Not from AC line to Ethernet.

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 15:12:04 -0600, Idlehands
wrote:

On 2018-06-03 10:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 09:35:23 -0600, Idlehands
wrote:

On 2018-06-03 12:11 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

snip

There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.

Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
in the microwave range.

We
have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
miles.

A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
little to no problems.

Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
a very large property.

I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here.

There are a number of extenders on the market that extend Cat6 POE over
long distances and I have used a number of them successfully.

http://www.veracityglobal.com/produc...e-devices.aspx

https://ethernetextender.com/cat6-repeater/

That's POWER OVER ETHERNET. And those extenders use a switch to
extend the span of the Ethernet. They don't "boost the signal", they
take packets in, adjust the address for the new segment, and send
packets out.


Data and power, no switch in the line, just the extender which powers
the POE device and sends data and are transparent to the data.
Do you even know what an ethernet switch is?????

Clue - itis not used to turn it on or off.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:10:44 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 15:12:04 -0600, Idlehands
wrote:

On 2018-06-03 10:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 09:35:23 -0600, Idlehands
wrote:

On 2018-06-03 12:11 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

snip

There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.

Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
in the microwave range.

We
have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
miles.

A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
little to no problems.

Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
a very large property.

I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here.

There are a number of extenders on the market that extend Cat6 POE over
long distances and I have used a number of them successfully.

http://www.veracityglobal.com/produc...e-devices.aspx

https://ethernetextender.com/cat6-repeater/

That's POWER OVER ETHERNET. And those extenders use a switch to
extend the span of the Ethernet. They don't "boost the signal", they
take packets in, adjust the address for the new segment, and send
packets out.


Data and power, no switch in the line, just the extender which powers
the POE device and sends data and are transparent to the data.

Please tell us what you believe "switch" to mean.
He doesn't have a clue - - -

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.

I don't believe that at all. Antenna diversity and MIMO solve these
problems in all but the most dense living situations.

Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

There is such a thing as "fast enough". We have exactly one wired link
in our house (that the cable company put in), basically because
there's no point in adding any more.

Wait till you see a decent fiber optic system and the possible speeds
and want to run 4k TV on wire for viewing new movies, especially on
more than one TV at a time. with full sound, using limited compression
and loss of musical tones.

Already done. Works fine.

Of course with the way my ears are going.

Audio bandwidth is miniscule.

Music, not voice.

Um, music *is* audio. Even *uncompressed* digital music is only
1.5Mb/channel. I repeat - miniscule bandwidth.

Voice is a whole lot less.

My video audio system has seven channels for sound. Multiply that by
three movies going on at the same time and it starts adding up, then
add the rest of the network traffic to it.

Is it small, yes. Is it something that should be ignored, perhaps, but
if you are not aware of it and your bandwidth seems to be seriously
degrading you need to be aware of it.

I have had occasion when doing a video chat that its signal was
seriously degraded due to a busy nic from background downloading of a
major update. It has happened enough times that I now make sure
everything's up to date so I can talk to my kids and grand kids. Then
again, I suppose I could use a managed switch and program it to offset
the issue. But you have to draw the line somewhere to be cost
effective.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:38:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:19:36 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:25:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.
Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

He is right. Especially when you find out how easy it is to hack WIFI
to the homes and businesses around you, especially on those that
haven't a clue about security. Years ago I used to connect up and
print out messages on their printers to clue them in.

Heavens! Someone will hack my television viewing! Oh, the
humanity!!!

They will and can hack your smart TV software or app's.

So they can then watch my Netflix, too?!!! I'm TERRIFIED, I tell ya'.

LOL actually not netflix per se, but embed voice commands in your
movie to enable your voice command programs without you knowing it.

But I was speaking of the TV itself, I was in contact with Samsung
last week and this is one of the things they mentioned about
increasing the security of their updates for your smart TV's. They are
starting to control the sources of where you can download the app's
for your TV because of hackers.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:27:26 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:10:28 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 03:36:52 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

SNIPP
Then you don't get what noisy lines are all about, and what can create
them. Interference. Also just pulling too hard on Ethernet cabling can
stretch the wire messing things up.

So tells us of a documented case in which "pulling too hard on the
cable" or "interference" reduced the transfer rate for 1000BaseTX to 2
mb/sec. You're saying "can happen". So show us when it _did_ happen
or you're just spreading FUD.

If you pull too hard on a gigabit cable and damage the cable it will
NOT autonegotiate down.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Depends on the damage. I just
replaced a network cable that was consistently resulting in
autonegotiation from 1 gig to 100 meg and then sometimes failing the
100 meg. It had a lot more problems than "being pulled too hard"
though.

100/10 autonegotiates. Gigabit by definition does not.

I have seen it slow the network down SIGNIFICANTLY due to dropped
packets and retries - to well below a 2mb equivalent. Any one
conductor suffering damage in Gb ethernet WILL slow the network down.
Or kill it DEAD (at least the one segment)

Ok, so you have numbers to present that show this? Please show the
actual numbers.

Gigabit uses all 8 wires in a cat5 /6/7 cable for full duplex mode
10/100 does not - so with 10-100 you COULD damage 2 pairs without
affecting the ethernet.

A bad connection in ANY pair will affect data transmission on gigabit
ethernet.

I don't have numbers - just years of experience troubleshooting
network cabling.

A kinked Cat5E cable will fail the quality test for GB ethernet.
Running the cables parallel to a high current AC conductor will do the
same.

I have tried experiments in this regard and Fluke does not seem to be
able to detect the high current conductor.

It might just be a fluke???

All I know is we had a network speed issue and it was solved when we
moved the vertical network cable run about 18 inches away from the
electrical service sub-panel instead of running them behind the panel

It won't slow down the bit-rate - but it will definitely cause
deterioration in the service via lost packets and retries, which
translates to a slower EFFECTIVE bit-rate.
SNIPPPPP

How much slower, based on actual evidence?

Enough for the database program to fail out on data requests and
transfers. Off hand I'd say it cut the speed to about 1/10 when the AC
was on, about half speed at other times.

When talking 10BT /100BT, the troublesome auto-negotiation protocols
COULD downgrade a 100BT to 10BT, and often provided better throughput
on a reliable 10BT connection than on a flakey 100BT - but 10BT is "so
nineties"

So you say that the autonegotiation protocols for 100baseT can reduce
to 10 but somehow the autonegotiation protocols for gigabit can't
reduce to 100. Why would that be?
It is my understanding autonegotiation in gigabit ethernet is based
on each device reporting (signaling) it's capability (using the base
link code word) and the devices choosing the fastest mutually
supported speed/configuration - and then it either works or doesn't.
If both ends of the segment report giga capability, they ONLY attempt
connection at giga speeds and can NOT down-switch to 100, unlike the
somewhat problematic earlier 10/100 protocol that COULD (sometimes, if
the stars were properly aligned) switch two 100Mbs devices ro 10Mbs if
the cabling could not support 10Mbs without errors.

I MAY be wrong, but that is my understanding, and how it was described
to me back when gigabit ethernet came on the scene way back about
1998?





The base link code word (from WIKI)

Every fast link pulse burst transmits a word of 16 bits known as a
link code word. The first such word is known as a base link code word,
and its bits are used as follows:
0–4: selector field: it indicates which standard is used between IEEE
802.3 and IEEE 802.9;
5–12: technology ability field: this is a sequence of bits that encode
the possible modes of operations among the 100BASE-T and 10BASE-T
modes;
13: remote fault: this is set to one when the device is detecting a
link failure;
14: acknowledgement: the device sets this to one to indicate the
correct reception of the base link code word from the other party;
this is detected by the reception of at least three identical base
code words;
15: next page: this bit is used to indicate the intention of sending
other link code words after the base link code word;

The technology ability field is composed of eight bits. For IEEE
802.3, these are as follows:
bit 0: device supports 10BASE-T
bit 1: device supports 10BASE-T in full duplex
bit 2: device supports 100BASE-TX
bit 3: device supports 100BASE-TX in full duplex
bit 4: device supports 100BASE-T4
bit 5: pause
bit 6: asymmetric pause for full duplex
bit 7: reserved

The acknowledgement bit is used to signal the correct reception of the
base code word. This corresponds to having received three identical
copies of the base code word. Upon receiving these three identical
copies, the device sends a link code word with the acknowledge bit set
to one from six times to eight times.

The link code words are also called pages. The base link code word is
therefore called a base page. The next page bit of the base page is 1
when the device intends to send other pages, which can be used to
communicate other abilities. These additional pages are sent only if
both devices have sent base pages with a next page bit set to 1. The
additional pages are still encoded as link code words (using 17 clock
pulses and up to 16 bit pulses

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 14:27:54 -0700, OFWW
wrote:



Reading your post brought back a lot of memories, especially about a
fast changing world.

I remember designing and building an HO POP in a wall cabinet. Thought
it was hot and would save a lot of labor and stuff strewn all about.

Six months later it was made so obsolete it was embarrassing.

I'm debating just trashing what I have here, don't even know what EBay
is doing these days on the stuff, or if 3rd world countries are still
behind the scenes and it might be useful there.

As to keeping up with the Licensing, unless you worked for a company
that supported your training/updating it could be rough.

One of the things I liked to do was setup flawed routers and managed
switches at home to help others with diagnosing and working out
problems. At the time I usually had a prize for those that made it all
the way though, that they could download once all the connections were
made. That was fun at the time.

Times have sure changed.

I now prefer woodworking and a garden with edibles, even cooking.


I worked in Education for a few years. The first half of my working
life was spent in the automotive repair trade - and I taught it both
at the secondary and posts secondary (trade) level as well as training
apprentices in the shop.

Teaching guys how to logically troubleshoot a system was always a
challenge.

When I shifted to the IT world the troubleshooting didn't get much
easier!!!!!

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:04:11 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:56:57 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

Clare--I want to make something clear. I am having a problem with the
fellow who is asserting that if you run a CAT6 cable to your garage
you end up with fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers
and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the
dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living
together . . .

I have never known _you_ to give advice regarding network that was
other than sane and straightforward.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

SNIPP

If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.

Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
wire.

8 strands of barbed wire I assume?????

Yep.

https://www.wband.com/2002/05/wideba...onal-magazine/

IIRC Broadcomm was demonstrating their interface chips--they did a
similar one with 100baseT a few years earlier.

That was specific to WideBand Corps implementation of 1000Bt
networking. Not everyone's implementation was as robust!!!

It will NOT downgrade it's speed as required to maintain connectivity.
Instead it will fail and retry, and fail again, untill it manages to
successfully pass the packet. This will NOT result in gagabit speeds -
likely even less than 10BT speeds.

I was having trouble with the computer I am using right now.

Periodically Internet access would slow to a crawl. Speed was all
over the map. The network connection would drop from gigabit to 100
mbit. Speedtest would show speeds as low as 5 Mb/sec but usually more
like 50 and sometimes back up to 300 (limit here is my ISP).

Finally tracked down the problem. There was a patch cable that had
gotten walked on, had furniture run over it, been gnawed by rodents,
and was in a few spots there was bare wire poking out,. Sometimes it
was _still_ carrying 300+ Mb/sec.

It's not as fragile as people think it is, at least not when it's
being run in a typical residential environment where runs are,
compared to what the spec allows, quite short. If you're working
right at the limit of what it can do, where signal attenuation is
piled on top of everything else it's another story, but that doesn't
typically happen in somebody's house.

You want to try in a 300 ft long building with various itterations of
cat5/cat5e cabling running both bundled and helter-skelter, some in
troughs, some not - running both over and beside flourescent lamp
troughs, down walls behind service panels, under floors, over
suspended ceilings, with "noisy" led lighting, you name it - with
servers and switches in 2 different areas of the building, with 2
separate networks interlinked (one data, one voip) and other
challenges.
The voip was POE 10/100 - the data mostly 1000BT.

There is a reason IT techs like myself keep our hair cut short!!!!

SNIPP
I also still have a few routers, switches and stuff, Cisco commercial
products, wanna buy them and get them off my hands?


I've got gigabit stuff that's technically obsolete too - but would
still make someone a DANDY network

About $20,000 worth, at the very minimum when new - and it is NOT
CISCO.

The devil in me wants to say "good decision".

I suspect that they are well and truly obsolete.

In any case, nobody is going to be running a T1 from their house to
their garage on a CAT6 cable. What's going to be running on it, in
2018, is gigabit Ethernet.


Or even. more commonly, a 100Mb connection (still WAY faster than
most internets)

A couple of years ago I'd agree, but at this point any computer you
buy has gigabit and the local Best Buy doesn't even have any switches
that don't support gigabit--the cheapest is a 5 port for 30 bucks.

Of course not, the switchgear costs alone would be prohibitive, plus
the cabling. But he could run fiber optics and never have any of the
problems associated with hard wire systems.

What would justify the expense?

The only thing that would justify fiber to the shop is EMI issues -
and they would have to be BAD - unless you just happen to have a bunch
of fiber net equipment gathering dust in the "sandbox" and you want to
play - - - -

Yep.

If my creds are so important to you then you can call Cisco and see
what all I was certified for at the time. I am not keeping my certs
updated because I am retired. Get it?

And the equipment is leaving you WAY behind as well.
I never got CISCO certified because you could go broke just
maintaining currency with their new product.

I did not say "creds", I said "cred". You're topping it the expert
here when it's clear that you are far from up to date.

I'm basically "retired" for a year and I know I'm already far from up
to date with current technology.

I'm not retired but I've been away from the networking world for a
long time, still, knowing what a CAT6 cable actually looks like when
you cut it open is pretty basic. Where I get lost these days is with
all the wifi variants and the 10gig stuff.

I gave up trying to keep up 5 years
ago when I offloaded the network management to a third party
consultant - who also prooved to be less than current and has now been
replaced by a larger and more proficient network consulting/management
firm. I wouldn't know where to start with the current setup in the new
insurance office facility. It's all enterprise grade stuff surplussed
out from Blackberry's downsizing - well over 1/4 million dollars worth
of network switches, routers, servers etc

The "obsolete" gear I have sitting here is what came out of the 2
offices when they moved in together in the new facility - virtually
all less than 5 years old

SNIPP
Explaining or rationalizing why it is important to do it right in the
first place.

What is "right" and what is adequate to the task are two different
things.

Overkill in IT installations is RAMPANT - particularly for home
installs.

Precisely my point. For this situation I would either use wifi to
begin with or run a direct-burial cable (note that in my location the
town will be on you if you run an overhead cable).

SNIPP

Well that's all well and good. So how much measured degradtation have
you experiences in wires run from people's houses to people's garages
carrying gigabit?

I didn't do houses expect for friends. But the ground field for the
bldg is a big issue in such cases which I addressed in another post.

Apples - oranges - Turnips.

Yep. Spreading FUD. "You're gonna get electrocuted because you ran a
CAT6 cable to the garage". So why don't you get electrocuted when you
plug in the hedge trimmer to the outlet in that same garage?

Yeah, you addressed it but didn't give any reason to believe that you
are familiar with transformer-coupled network interfaces which are
standard with modern Ethernet but apparently didn't exist the last
time you dealt with Ethernet.

If I gave you my full resume from all the years I've worked you would
probably call me a liar too. Oh well. what's a guy to do?

I don't care about your damned resume. You remind me of the mainframe
types who have been in IT for 50 years but can't figure out how to
work Excel.

About 27 years and I'm already a dynasaur - and I've never been
involved with anything outside the IBM compatible PC world, except for
the old 6809 Tandy world. (a bit of Banyan Vines, a bit of Unix Xenix,
a bit of Nohell, a touch of OS9 on the 6809 Trash80) - but
functionally illiterate outside the MS DOS / Windows world.

It's hard to keep up with all of it. The sad thing is that the kids
running it today seem to be lost. I suspect that there's going to
come a time when I bring my cable analyzer to work and show the IT
people what's wrong with their damned network.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:13:09 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:35:05 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:08:36 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:
SNIPP
My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.
Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

He is right. Especially when you find out how easy it is to hack WIFI
to the homes and businesses around you, especially on those that
haven't a clue about security. Years ago I used to connect up and
print out messages on their printers to clue them in.

Wired is faster, but how fast do you NEED? I see no evidence of a
trend to wired for residential use.

As for ease of hacking, this is mostly FUD. Has any data breach
causing economic harm to anyone _ever_ been traced to a wifi hack?

Yes. Using public WIFI - at coffee shop or motel, has compromized
several of my customers' laptops, at least one corporate bank account,
and numerous websites when the owner logged onto his server to manage
his website. (Huge damage to the websites -significant cost involved)

We KNOW it was wifi hacks in at least 3 of the cases because of where
the hacker got in from and where the customer was at the time
(Texas/Mexico , Indonesia, and Thailand)

Thank you. Someone with actual facts.

Most data thieves don't go after Joe Homeowner or Fred's Pizza. They
go after somebody who is likely to have enough in assets accessible by
computer to actually be worth stealing.

That's "data thieves", but malicious "code kiddies"are another
altogether. They derive "street cred" from their hacks, and when they
get credit card information and passwords, hang on!!!!! Thankfully the
banks take the hit instead of the customer.


I have NO IDEA how anyone got my bank card number and password - it is
ONLY used as identification and my home bank branch (only once at the
ATM) and to log into my electronic banking application (which I had
only done TWICE before someone successfully used it in Mexico and
tried to use it 3 more times )
They got $600 out of my account oin the "trial run" then tried for
several thousand (unsuccessfully, thanks to my bank's security
settings) over the next couple of days. Cost the bank -not me - and
necessitated getting a new bank access card.
Not sure WIFI was involved on this one as I only accessed the
application ONCE on wifi - and that was on my secured home wifi - the
card has never been outside of Canada - muchless been used or
referenced outside of Canada - but to have both my card number and my
14 digit very high security password it had to have been "sniffed"
somewhere.

How they got the password is the real question.
They HAD to have "sniffed" the internet when and where I was
connecting to the EZWeb interface either when Iset it up (on my wired
internet connection), or when I accessed it (once on wired, and once
on secured home wifi)
Both are behind a NAT firewall.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.

I don't believe that at all. Antenna diversity and MIMO solve these
problems in all but the most dense living situations.

Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

There is such a thing as "fast enough". We have exactly one wired link
in our house (that the cable company put in), basically because
there's no point in adding any more.

Wait till you see a decent fiber optic system and the possible speeds
and want to run 4k TV on wire for viewing new movies, especially on
more than one TV at a time. with full sound, using limited compression
and loss of musical tones.

Already done. Works fine.

Of course with the way my ears are going.

Audio bandwidth is miniscule.

Music, not voice.

Um, music *is* audio. Even *uncompressed* digital music is only
1.5Mb/channel. I repeat - miniscule bandwidth.

Voice is a whole lot less.

Less than miniscule? OK, it's less than miniscule. So what?

My video audio system has seven channels for sound. Multiply that by
three movies going on at the same time and it starts adding up, then
add the rest of the network traffic to it.

So that's still miniscule bandwidth.

Is it small, yes. Is it something that should be ignored, perhaps, but
if you are not aware of it and your bandwidth seems to be seriously
degrading you need to be aware of it.

It *IS* small. Something that CAN be ignored on GBE.

I have had occasion when doing a video chat that its signal was
seriously degraded due to a busy nic from background downloading of a
major update. It has happened enough times that I now make sure
everything's up to date so I can talk to my kids and grand kids. Then
again, I suppose I could use a managed switch and program it to offset
the issue. But you have to draw the line somewhere to be cost
effective.

But it was NOT the audio that was causing the issue. Good grief!

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:04:49 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:38:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:19:36 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:25:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.
Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

He is right. Especially when you find out how easy it is to hack WIFI
to the homes and businesses around you, especially on those that
haven't a clue about security. Years ago I used to connect up and
print out messages on their printers to clue them in.

Heavens! Someone will hack my television viewing! Oh, the
humanity!!!

They will and can hack your smart TV software or app's.

So they can then watch my Netflix, too?!!! I'm TERRIFIED, I tell ya'.

LOL actually not netflix per se, but embed voice commands in your
movie to enable your voice command programs without you knowing it.

That's a pretty good trick since I don't have any microphones around.
BTW, you're ****ting bricks over WiFi security and *have* Internet
microphones sprinkled around your house? Amazing!

But I was speaking of the TV itself, I was in contact with Samsung
last week and this is one of the things they mentioned about
increasing the security of their updates for your smart TV's. They are
starting to control the sources of where you can download the app's
for your TV because of hackers.

Or they want control of the market, like Google (Android) and Apple
(iOS).

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:47:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in news

Funnier part... finding this pipe under the pad distracted me so much
that I forgot that I had already figured all this out. :-)
I can't use that path because it I would have to take a hard right
turn and then another left to go around the end of the septic system's
leach field. I don't like the prospect of pulling #6 through those
bends on a 100'+ run.

On the far edge of the driveway is a row of 80ft Poplars. Because I
don't want to dig through their major roots, I can't use a ditch-witch
to trench that path.

At the corner of the garage where I intended to start the underground
conduit, there is an expansion joint in the parking area pad with
asphalt expansion joint filler. The path along that joint is far
enough away from the leach bed and far enough from the tree roots that
I can go straight back along that expansion joint.
All I have to do is rent a concrete saw and make one cut a few inches
from the existing expansion joint and then fill it back in with
Quickcrete when I'm done laying the conduit.

That will be easier than hand digging a trench around 3-4" tree roots
and trying to weave the conduit over and under them.



My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to the
garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be worth
digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a punch down
connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you take
certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you must go
close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded pipe. I
didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I didn't research
them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.

I am Cisco certified, it is not recommended.


60 cycle interference?

In is unsafe to take a chance with high voltage crossing over to a
consumer device. There is also the electromagnetic effect, especially
on an A/C system with its varying loads. On systems with variable
speed drives there are multiple problems, and it is also a Code
violation in most places. It is not even recommended to mix land line
phone lines in the walls, or conduit, and any box.

Then I suppose they don't really make these things.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Carlon-2-Gang-Dual-Voltage-Box-and-Bracket-SC200DVR/100146034


Yes they do, for a phone line and a cable TV hookup on one side and
power on the other side. The EMI On 110 has very little effect on
those items. As to the Satellite TV guys they would refuse to do it
that way, they are trained to keep them separate on Direct TV.

If only Direct TV installers were sharp enough to get out of bed in
the morning.


EMI isn't the issue, here. It's safety and that isn't a big deal
in-wall, either.

If you run the power and other lines neatly together it is your
problem.

It's not a problem.

I have run across EMI issues in the past when it was least expected.

Not from AC line to Ethernet.

Yes, I have.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:29:01 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 14:27:54 -0700, OFWW
wrote:



Reading your post brought back a lot of memories, especially about a
fast changing world.

I remember designing and building an HO POP in a wall cabinet. Thought
it was hot and would save a lot of labor and stuff strewn all about.

Six months later it was made so obsolete it was embarrassing.

I'm debating just trashing what I have here, don't even know what EBay
is doing these days on the stuff, or if 3rd world countries are still
behind the scenes and it might be useful there.

As to keeping up with the Licensing, unless you worked for a company
that supported your training/updating it could be rough.

One of the things I liked to do was setup flawed routers and managed
switches at home to help others with diagnosing and working out
problems. At the time I usually had a prize for those that made it all
the way though, that they could download once all the connections were
made. That was fun at the time.

Times have sure changed.

I now prefer woodworking and a garden with edibles, even cooking.


I worked in Education for a few years. The first half of my working
life was spent in the automotive repair trade - and I taught it both
at the secondary and posts secondary (trade) level as well as training
apprentices in the shop.

Teaching guys how to logically troubleshoot a system was always a
challenge.

When I shifted to the IT world the troubleshooting didn't get much
easier!!!!!

Boy HOWDY! Some people have it and many don't.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:12:23 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:47:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in news

Funnier part... finding this pipe under the pad distracted me so much
that I forgot that I had already figured all this out. :-)
I can't use that path because it I would have to take a hard right
turn and then another left to go around the end of the septic system's
leach field. I don't like the prospect of pulling #6 through those
bends on a 100'+ run.

On the far edge of the driveway is a row of 80ft Poplars. Because I
don't want to dig through their major roots, I can't use a ditch-witch
to trench that path.

At the corner of the garage where I intended to start the underground
conduit, there is an expansion joint in the parking area pad with
asphalt expansion joint filler. The path along that joint is far
enough away from the leach bed and far enough from the tree roots that
I can go straight back along that expansion joint.
All I have to do is rent a concrete saw and make one cut a few inches
from the existing expansion joint and then fill it back in with
Quickcrete when I'm done laying the conduit.

That will be easier than hand digging a trench around 3-4" tree roots
and trying to weave the conduit over and under them.



My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to the
garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be worth
digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a punch down
connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you take
certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you must go
close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded pipe. I
didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I didn't research
them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.

I am Cisco certified, it is not recommended.


60 cycle interference?

In is unsafe to take a chance with high voltage crossing over to a
consumer device. There is also the electromagnetic effect, especially
on an A/C system with its varying loads. On systems with variable
speed drives there are multiple problems, and it is also a Code
violation in most places. It is not even recommended to mix land line
phone lines in the walls, or conduit, and any box.

Then I suppose they don't really make these things.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Carlon-2-Gang-Dual-Voltage-Box-and-Bracket-SC200DVR/100146034


Yes they do, for a phone line and a cable TV hookup on one side and
power on the other side. The EMI On 110 has very little effect on
those items. As to the Satellite TV guys they would refuse to do it
that way, they are trained to keep them separate on Direct TV.

If only Direct TV installers were sharp enough to get out of bed in
the morning.


EMI isn't the issue, here. It's safety and that isn't a big deal
in-wall, either.

If you run the power and other lines neatly together it is your
problem.

It's not a problem.

I have run across EMI issues in the past when it was least expected.

Not from AC line to Ethernet.

Yes, I have.

Nonsense.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:23:00 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:27:26 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:10:28 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 03:36:52 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

SNIPP
Then you don't get what noisy lines are all about, and what can create
them. Interference. Also just pulling too hard on Ethernet cabling can
stretch the wire messing things up.

So tells us of a documented case in which "pulling too hard on the
cable" or "interference" reduced the transfer rate for 1000BaseTX to 2
mb/sec. You're saying "can happen". So show us when it _did_ happen
or you're just spreading FUD.

If you pull too hard on a gigabit cable and damage the cable it will
NOT autonegotiate down.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Depends on the damage. I just
replaced a network cable that was consistently resulting in
autonegotiation from 1 gig to 100 meg and then sometimes failing the
100 meg. It had a lot more problems than "being pulled too hard"
though.

100/10 autonegotiates. Gigabit by definition does not.

IEEE 802.3-2015 section 40.5.1 Support for Auto-Negotiation:

"All 1000BASE-T PHYs shall provide support for Auto-Negotiation"

IEEE 802.3-2015 section 55.6.1 Support for Auto-Negotiation:

"All 10GBASE-T PHYs shall provide support for Auto-Negotiation"

I have seen it slow the network down SIGNIFICANTLY due to dropped
packets and retries - to well below a 2mb equivalent. Any one
conductor suffering damage in Gb ethernet WILL slow the network down.
Or kill it DEAD (at least the one segment)

Ok, so you have numbers to present that show this? Please show the
actual numbers.

Gigabit uses all 8 wires in a cat5 /6/7 cable for full duplex mode
10/100 does not - so with 10-100 you COULD damage 2 pairs without
affecting the ethernet.

A bad connection in ANY pair will affect data transmission on gigabit
ethernet.

I don't have numbers - just years of experience troubleshooting
network cabling.

A kinked Cat5E cable will fail the quality test for GB ethernet.
Running the cables parallel to a high current AC conductor will do the
same.

I have tried experiments in this regard and Fluke does not seem to be
able to detect the high current conductor.

It might just be a fluke???

All I know is we had a network speed issue and it was solved when we
moved the vertical network cable run about 18 inches away from the
electrical service sub-panel instead of running them behind the panel

So how much current was that sub-panel handling vs how much a
residential garage handles?

It won't slow down the bit-rate - but it will definitely cause
deterioration in the service via lost packets and retries, which
translates to a slower EFFECTIVE bit-rate.
SNIPPPPP

How much slower, based on actual evidence?

Enough for the database program to fail out on data requests and
transfers. Off hand I'd say it cut the speed to about 1/10 when the AC
was on, about half speed at other times.

So that should be down to 100 mb/sec.

When talking 10BT /100BT, the troublesome auto-negotiation protocols
COULD downgrade a 100BT to 10BT, and often provided better throughput
on a reliable 10BT connection than on a flakey 100BT - but 10BT is "so
nineties"

So you say that the autonegotiation protocols for 100baseT can reduce
to 10 but somehow the autonegotiation protocols for gigabit can't
reduce to 100. Why would that be?

It is my understanding autonegotiation in gigabit ethernet is based
on each device reporting (signaling) it's capability (using the base
link code word) and the devices choosing the fastest mutually
supported speed/configuration - and then it either works or doesn't.
If both ends of the segment report giga capability, they ONLY attempt
connection at giga speeds and can NOT down-switch to 100, unlike the
somewhat problematic earlier 10/100 protocol that COULD (sometimes, if
the stars were properly aligned) switch two 100Mbs devices ro 10Mbs if
the cabling could not support 10Mbs without errors.

I MAY be wrong, but that is my understanding, and how it was described
to me back when gigabit ethernet came on the scene way back about
1998?

There does seem to be some confusion on this point. Initial
autonegotiation is supposed to be per Clause 28, which, among other
things, specifies (28.1.4.3) "Provision has been made within
Auto-Negotiation to limit the resulting link configuration in
situations where the cabling may not support the highest common
capability of the two end points.".

Once Clause 28 autonegotiation has determined that all the pieces are
in place to run gigabit, then Clause 40 takes over and works out the
details of the gigabit connection.

By the way, don't know if you're aware of it but 802.3 is a free
download from IEEE after you tell them your life story.

I'm not going to try to dig out all the details--802.3 is over 4000
pages and Clause 28 alone is more than 50 pages.

The base link code word (from WIKI)

Every fast link pulse burst transmits a word of 16 bits known as a
link code word. The first such word is known as a base link code word,
and its bits are used as follows:
0–4: selector field: it indicates which standard is used between IEEE
802.3 and IEEE 802.9;
5–12: technology ability field: this is a sequence of bits that encode
the possible modes of operations among the 100BASE-T and 10BASE-T
modes;
13: remote fault: this is set to one when the device is detecting a
link failure;
14: acknowledgement: the device sets this to one to indicate the
correct reception of the base link code word from the other party;
this is detected by the reception of at least three identical base
code words;
15: next page: this bit is used to indicate the intention of sending
other link code words after the base link code word;

The technology ability field is composed of eight bits. For IEEE
802.3, these are as follows:
bit 0: device supports 10BASE-T
bit 1: device supports 10BASE-T in full duplex
bit 2: device supports 100BASE-TX
bit 3: device supports 100BASE-TX in full duplex
bit 4: device supports 100BASE-T4
bit 5: pause
bit 6: asymmetric pause for full duplex
bit 7: reserved

The acknowledgement bit is used to signal the correct reception of the
base code word. This corresponds to having received three identical
copies of the base code word. Upon receiving these three identical
copies, the device sends a link code word with the acknowledge bit set
to one from six times to eight times.

The link code words are also called pages. The base link code word is
therefore called a base page. The next page bit of the base page is 1
when the device intends to send other pages, which can be used to
communicate other abilities. These additional pages are sent only if
both devices have sent base pages with a next page bit set to 1. The
additional pages are still encoded as link code words (using 17 clock
pulses and up to 16 bit pulses

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:40:24 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:04:11 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:56:57 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

Clare--I want to make something clear. I am having a problem with the
fellow who is asserting that if you run a CAT6 cable to your garage
you end up with fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers
and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the
dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living
together . . .

I have never known _you_ to give advice regarding network that was
other than sane and straightforward.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

SNIPP

If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.

Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
wire.

8 strands of barbed wire I assume?????

Yep.

https://www.wband.com/2002/05/wideba...onal-magazine/

IIRC Broadcomm was demonstrating their interface chips--they did a
similar one with 100baseT a few years earlier.

That was specific to WideBand Corps implementation of 1000Bt
networking. Not everyone's implementation was as robust!!!

It will NOT downgrade it's speed as required to maintain connectivity.
Instead it will fail and retry, and fail again, untill it manages to
successfully pass the packet. This will NOT result in gagabit speeds -
likely even less than 10BT speeds.

I was having trouble with the computer I am using right now.

Periodically Internet access would slow to a crawl. Speed was all
over the map. The network connection would drop from gigabit to 100
mbit. Speedtest would show speeds as low as 5 Mb/sec but usually more
like 50 and sometimes back up to 300 (limit here is my ISP).

Finally tracked down the problem. There was a patch cable that had
gotten walked on, had furniture run over it, been gnawed by rodents,
and was in a few spots there was bare wire poking out,. Sometimes it
was _still_ carrying 300+ Mb/sec.

It's not as fragile as people think it is, at least not when it's
being run in a typical residential environment where runs are,
compared to what the spec allows, quite short. If you're working
right at the limit of what it can do, where signal attenuation is
piled on top of everything else it's another story, but that doesn't
typically happen in somebody's house.

You want to try in a 300 ft long building with various itterations of
cat5/cat5e cabling running both bundled and helter-skelter, some in
troughs, some not - running both over and beside flourescent lamp
troughs, down walls behind service panels, under floors, over
suspended ceilings, with "noisy" led lighting, you name it - with
servers and switches in 2 different areas of the building, with 2
separate networks interlinked (one data, one voip) and other
challenges.
The voip was POE 10/100 - the data mostly 1000BT.


Made me remember there were occasional times I'd get incensed about
guys stringing cables near fluorescent lamps, especially when they
were clearly instructed to that very morning. And one of the worst
offenders were variable frequency drives of A/C equipment, pumps, etc.
We did a lot of automation/energy saving jobs.

Or running cables right near a water pump under the flooring in a
server center.

There is a reason IT techs like myself keep our hair cut short!!!!

SNIPP
I also still have a few routers, switches and stuff, Cisco commercial
products, wanna buy them and get them off my hands?


I've got gigabit stuff that's technically obsolete too - but would
still make someone a DANDY network

About $20,000 worth, at the very minimum when new - and it is NOT
CISCO.

The devil in me wants to say "good decision".

I suspect that they are well and truly obsolete.

In any case, nobody is going to be running a T1 from their house to
their garage on a CAT6 cable. What's going to be running on it, in
2018, is gigabit Ethernet.


Or even. more commonly, a 100Mb connection (still WAY faster than
most internets)

A couple of years ago I'd agree, but at this point any computer you
buy has gigabit and the local Best Buy doesn't even have any switches
that don't support gigabit--the cheapest is a 5 port for 30 bucks.

Of course not, the switchgear costs alone would be prohibitive, plus
the cabling. But he could run fiber optics and never have any of the
problems associated with hard wire systems.

What would justify the expense?

The only thing that would justify fiber to the shop is EMI issues -
and they would have to be BAD - unless you just happen to have a bunch
of fiber net equipment gathering dust in the "sandbox" and you want to
play - - - -

Yep.

If my creds are so important to you then you can call Cisco and see
what all I was certified for at the time. I am not keeping my certs
updated because I am retired. Get it?

And the equipment is leaving you WAY behind as well.
I never got CISCO certified because you could go broke just
maintaining currency with their new product.

I did not say "creds", I said "cred". You're topping it the expert
here when it's clear that you are far from up to date.

I'm basically "retired" for a year and I know I'm already far from up
to date with current technology.

I'm not retired but I've been away from the networking world for a
long time, still, knowing what a CAT6 cable actually looks like when
you cut it open is pretty basic. Where I get lost these days is with
all the wifi variants and the 10gig stuff.

I gave up trying to keep up 5 years
ago when I offloaded the network management to a third party
consultant - who also prooved to be less than current and has now been
replaced by a larger and more proficient network consulting/management
firm. I wouldn't know where to start with the current setup in the new
insurance office facility. It's all enterprise grade stuff surplussed
out from Blackberry's downsizing - well over 1/4 million dollars worth
of network switches, routers, servers etc

The "obsolete" gear I have sitting here is what came out of the 2
offices when they moved in together in the new facility - virtually
all less than 5 years old

SNIPP
Explaining or rationalizing why it is important to do it right in the
first place.

What is "right" and what is adequate to the task are two different
things.

Overkill in IT installations is RAMPANT - particularly for home
installs.

Precisely my point. For this situation I would either use wifi to
begin with or run a direct-burial cable (note that in my location the
town will be on you if you run an overhead cable).

SNIPP

Well that's all well and good. So how much measured degradtation have
you experiences in wires run from people's houses to people's garages
carrying gigabit?

I didn't do houses expect for friends. But the ground field for the
bldg is a big issue in such cases which I addressed in another post.

Apples - oranges - Turnips.

Yep. Spreading FUD. "You're gonna get electrocuted because you ran a
CAT6 cable to the garage". So why don't you get electrocuted when you
plug in the hedge trimmer to the outlet in that same garage?

Yeah, you addressed it but didn't give any reason to believe that you
are familiar with transformer-coupled network interfaces which are
standard with modern Ethernet but apparently didn't exist the last
time you dealt with Ethernet.

If I gave you my full resume from all the years I've worked you would
probably call me a liar too. Oh well. what's a guy to do?

I don't care about your damned resume. You remind me of the mainframe
types who have been in IT for 50 years but can't figure out how to
work Excel.

About 27 years and I'm already a dynasaur - and I've never been
involved with anything outside the IBM compatible PC world, except for
the old 6809 Tandy world. (a bit of Banyan Vines, a bit of Unix Xenix,
a bit of Nohell, a touch of OS9 on the 6809 Trash80) - but
functionally illiterate outside the MS DOS / Windows world.

It's hard to keep up with all of it. The sad thing is that the kids
running it today seem to be lost. I suspect that there's going to
come a time when I bring my cable analyzer to work and show the IT
people what's wrong with their damned network.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:40:24 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:04:11 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:56:57 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

Clare--I want to make something clear. I am having a problem with the
fellow who is asserting that if you run a CAT6 cable to your garage
you end up with fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers
and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the
dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living
together . . .

I have never known _you_ to give advice regarding network that was
other than sane and straightforward.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

SNIPP

If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.

Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
wire.

8 strands of barbed wire I assume?????

Yep.

https://www.wband.com/2002/05/wideba...onal-magazine/

IIRC Broadcomm was demonstrating their interface chips--they did a
similar one with 100baseT a few years earlier.

That was specific to WideBand Corps implementation of 1000Bt
networking. Not everyone's implementation was as robust!!!

It will NOT downgrade it's speed as required to maintain connectivity.
Instead it will fail and retry, and fail again, untill it manages to
successfully pass the packet. This will NOT result in gagabit speeds -
likely even less than 10BT speeds.

I was having trouble with the computer I am using right now.

Periodically Internet access would slow to a crawl. Speed was all
over the map. The network connection would drop from gigabit to 100
mbit. Speedtest would show speeds as low as 5 Mb/sec but usually more
like 50 and sometimes back up to 300 (limit here is my ISP).

Finally tracked down the problem. There was a patch cable that had
gotten walked on, had furniture run over it, been gnawed by rodents,
and was in a few spots there was bare wire poking out,. Sometimes it
was _still_ carrying 300+ Mb/sec.

It's not as fragile as people think it is, at least not when it's
being run in a typical residential environment where runs are,
compared to what the spec allows, quite short. If you're working
right at the limit of what it can do, where signal attenuation is
piled on top of everything else it's another story, but that doesn't
typically happen in somebody's house.

You want to try in a 300 ft long building with various itterations of
cat5/cat5e cabling running both bundled and helter-skelter, some in
troughs, some not - running both over and beside flourescent lamp
troughs, down walls behind service panels, under floors, over
suspended ceilings, with "noisy" led lighting, you name it - with
servers and switches in 2 different areas of the building, with 2
separate networks interlinked (one data, one voip) and other
challenges.
The voip was POE 10/100 - the data mostly 1000BT.

There is a reason IT techs like myself keep our hair cut short!!!!

The thing is though, that's not the situation we're discussing, we're
discussing running a line from somebody's house to somebody's garage.
Unless it's the Gates Mansion or Mar A Lago or some such that
shouldn't be even coming close to the span limits.

Note, I work in such a building--I should send you a photo of the
tunnel sometime. But fortunately I don't have to maintain the
network--by some weird quirk of fate I am now a finance guy.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.

I don't believe that at all. Antenna diversity and MIMO solve these
problems in all but the most dense living situations.

Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

There is such a thing as "fast enough". We have exactly one wired link
in our house (that the cable company put in), basically because
there's no point in adding any more.

Wait till you see a decent fiber optic system and the possible speeds
and want to run 4k TV on wire for viewing new movies, especially on
more than one TV at a time. with full sound, using limited compression
and loss of musical tones.

Already done. Works fine.

Of course with the way my ears are going.

Audio bandwidth is miniscule.

Music, not voice.

Um, music *is* audio. Even *uncompressed* digital music is only
1.5Mb/channel. I repeat - miniscule bandwidth.

Voice is a whole lot less.

Less than miniscule? OK, it's less than miniscule. So what?

My video audio system has seven channels for sound. Multiply that by
three movies going on at the same time and it starts adding up, then
add the rest of the network traffic to it.

So that's still miniscule bandwidth.

Is it small, yes. Is it something that should be ignored, perhaps, but
if you are not aware of it and your bandwidth seems to be seriously
degrading you need to be aware of it.

It *IS* small. Something that CAN be ignored on GBE.

I have had occasion when doing a video chat that its signal was
seriously degraded due to a busy nic from background downloading of a
major update. It has happened enough times that I now make sure
everything's up to date so I can talk to my kids and grand kids. Then
again, I suppose I could use a managed switch and program it to offset
the issue. But you have to draw the line somewhere to be cost
effective.

But it was NOT the audio that was causing the issue. Good grief!

Of course not, that is why I mentioned Total System Load.

Have you ever logged traffic on a network? Including collisions
because of it? I have, and that is why I am aware of the variables and
take them all into account. I don't just blow things off as
inconsequential until after inspection.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:02 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.

I don't believe that at all. Antenna diversity and MIMO solve these
problems in all but the most dense living situations.

Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

There is such a thing as "fast enough". We have exactly one wired link
in our house (that the cable company put in), basically because
there's no point in adding any more.

Wait till you see a decent fiber optic system and the possible speeds
and want to run 4k TV on wire for viewing new movies, especially on
more than one TV at a time. with full sound, using limited compression
and loss of musical tones.

Already done. Works fine.

Of course with the way my ears are going.

Audio bandwidth is miniscule.

Music, not voice.

Um, music *is* audio. Even *uncompressed* digital music is only
1.5Mb/channel. I repeat - miniscule bandwidth.

Voice is a whole lot less.

Less than miniscule? OK, it's less than miniscule. So what?

My video audio system has seven channels for sound. Multiply that by
three movies going on at the same time and it starts adding up, then
add the rest of the network traffic to it.

So that's still miniscule bandwidth.

Is it small, yes. Is it something that should be ignored, perhaps, but
if you are not aware of it and your bandwidth seems to be seriously
degrading you need to be aware of it.

It *IS* small. Something that CAN be ignored on GBE.

I have had occasion when doing a video chat that its signal was
seriously degraded due to a busy nic from background downloading of a
major update. It has happened enough times that I now make sure
everything's up to date so I can talk to my kids and grand kids. Then
again, I suppose I could use a managed switch and program it to offset
the issue. But you have to draw the line somewhere to be cost
effective.

But it was NOT the audio that was causing the issue. Good grief!

Of course not, that is why I mentioned Total System Load.

Have you ever logged traffic on a network? Including collisions

More of your outdated knowledge. Collisions haven't been part of
Ethernet for a very long time.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:54:42 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:04:49 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

--

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:38:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:19:36 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:25:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.
Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

He is right. Especially when you find out how easy it is to hack WIFI
to the homes and businesses around you, especially on those that
haven't a clue about security. Years ago I used to connect up and
print out messages on their printers to clue them in.

Heavens! Someone will hack my television viewing! Oh, the
humanity!!!

They will and can hack your smart TV software or app's.

So they can then watch my Netflix, too?!!! I'm TERRIFIED, I tell ya'.

LOL actually not netflix per se, but embed voice commands in your
movie to enable your voice command programs without you knowing it.

That's a pretty good trick since I don't have any microphones around.
BTW, you're ****ting bricks over WiFi security and *have* Internet
microphones sprinkled around your house? Amazing!

But I was speaking of the TV itself, I was in contact with Samsung
last week and this is one of the things they mentioned about
increasing the security of their updates for your smart TV's. They are
starting to control the sources of where you can download the app's
for your TV because of hackers.


Bet you're one of those anti big corporation types to.

Or they want control of the market, like Google (Android) and Apple
(iOS).
--

If you only knew what unrestrained programmers do either through
ingenuity, or laziness. When Windows NT became dominant a lot of
programs crashed because they wrote directly to the hardware, like
controlling the video card, etc. OR direct read write to the Hard
disk. I had done it myself because normal dos systems were too slow.

The windows put the lid on that with their hardware application layer
that prevented things like that, and many times if would cause a BSOD.

Apple got smart and limited programmers, and perhaps Google is now as
well. It is for good reason, I don't begrudge them one bit, I was
always basically anti Apple but they did get their stuff together, and
I now use their phones and tablets and I don't look back.

Linux is learning the hard way that a certain amount of regulation is
necessary. So I wouldn't begrudge any of them too quickly.

How about us dropping all this for the stuff we have in common, like
wood working?

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:21:43 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:23:00 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:27:26 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:10:28 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 03:36:52 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

SNIPP
Then you don't get what noisy lines are all about, and what can create
them. Interference. Also just pulling too hard on Ethernet cabling can
stretch the wire messing things up.

So tells us of a documented case in which "pulling too hard on the
cable" or "interference" reduced the transfer rate for 1000BaseTX to 2
mb/sec. You're saying "can happen". So show us when it _did_ happen
or you're just spreading FUD.

If you pull too hard on a gigabit cable and damage the cable it will
NOT autonegotiate down.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Depends on the damage. I just
replaced a network cable that was consistently resulting in
autonegotiation from 1 gig to 100 meg and then sometimes failing the
100 meg. It had a lot more problems than "being pulled too hard"
though.

100/10 autonegotiates. Gigabit by definition does not.

IEEE 802.3-2015 section 40.5.1 Support for Auto-Negotiation:

"All 1000BASE-T PHYs shall provide support for Auto-Negotiation"

IEEE 802.3-2015 section 55.6.1 Support for Auto-Negotiation:

"All 10GBASE-T PHYs shall provide support for Auto-Negotiation"

I have seen it slow the network down SIGNIFICANTLY due to dropped
packets and retries - to well below a 2mb equivalent. Any one
conductor suffering damage in Gb ethernet WILL slow the network down.
Or kill it DEAD (at least the one segment)

Ok, so you have numbers to present that show this? Please show the
actual numbers.

Gigabit uses all 8 wires in a cat5 /6/7 cable for full duplex mode
10/100 does not - so with 10-100 you COULD damage 2 pairs without
affecting the ethernet.

A bad connection in ANY pair will affect data transmission on gigabit
ethernet.

I don't have numbers - just years of experience troubleshooting
network cabling.

A kinked Cat5E cable will fail the quality test for GB ethernet.
Running the cables parallel to a high current AC conductor will do the
same.

I have tried experiments in this regard and Fluke does not seem to be
able to detect the high current conductor.

It might just be a fluke???

All I know is we had a network speed issue and it was solved when we
moved the vertical network cable run about 18 inches away from the
electrical service sub-panel instead of running them behind the panel

So how much current was that sub-panel handling vs how much a
residential garage handles?

About 300 amps per sub panel IIRC

It won't slow down the bit-rate - but it will definitely cause
deterioration in the service via lost packets and retries, which
translates to a slower EFFECTIVE bit-rate.
SNIPPPPP

How much slower, based on actual evidence?

Enough for the database program to fail out on data requests and
transfers. Off hand I'd say it cut the speed to about 1/10 when the AC
was on, about half speed at other times.

So that should be down to 100 mb/sec.
Effective, yes - but not negotiated.

When talking 10BT /100BT, the troublesome auto-negotiation protocols
COULD downgrade a 100BT to 10BT, and often provided better throughput
on a reliable 10BT connection than on a flakey 100BT - but 10BT is "so
nineties"

So you say that the autonegotiation protocols for 100baseT can reduce
to 10 but somehow the autonegotiation protocols for gigabit can't
reduce to 100. Why would that be?

It is my understanding autonegotiation in gigabit ethernet is based
on each device reporting (signaling) it's capability (using the base
link code word) and the devices choosing the fastest mutually
supported speed/configuration - and then it either works or doesn't.
If both ends of the segment report giga capability, they ONLY attempt
connection at giga speeds and can NOT down-switch to 100, unlike the
somewhat problematic earlier 10/100 protocol that COULD (sometimes, if
the stars were properly aligned) switch two 100Mbs devices ro 10Mbs if
the cabling could not support 10Mbs without errors.

I MAY be wrong, but that is my understanding, and how it was described
to me back when gigabit ethernet came on the scene way back about
1998?

There does seem to be some confusion on this point. Initial
autonegotiation is supposed to be per Clause 28, which, among other
things, specifies (28.1.4.3) "Provision has been made within
Auto-Negotiation to limit the resulting link configuration in
situations where the cabling may not support the highest common
capability of the two end points.".

Once Clause 28 autonegotiation has determined that all the pieces are
in place to run gigabit, then Clause 40 takes over and works out the
details of the gigabit connection.

By the way, don't know if you're aware of it but 802.3 is a free
download from IEEE after you tell them your life story.

I'm not going to try to dig out all the details--802.3 is over 4000
pages and Clause 28 alone is more than 50 pages.

I know it is VERY complex, and not all equipment 100% implements the
entire specification. What doesn't appear to be clear is what happens
after Clause 40 does it's negotiation and conditiopns change?

I was told the protocol doesn't change - it just resends lost
packets and retries untill it succedes - which slows the effective
speed, without actually changing the connection protocol.


The base link code word (from WIKI)

Every fast link pulse burst transmits a word of 16 bits known as a
link code word. The first such word is known as a base link code word,
and its bits are used as follows:
0–4: selector field: it indicates which standard is used between IEEE
802.3 and IEEE 802.9;
5–12: technology ability field: this is a sequence of bits that encode
the possible modes of operations among the 100BASE-T and 10BASE-T
modes;
13: remote fault: this is set to one when the device is detecting a
link failure;
14: acknowledgement: the device sets this to one to indicate the
correct reception of the base link code word from the other party;
this is detected by the reception of at least three identical base
code words;
15: next page: this bit is used to indicate the intention of sending
other link code words after the base link code word;

The technology ability field is composed of eight bits. For IEEE
802.3, these are as follows:
bit 0: device supports 10BASE-T
bit 1: device supports 10BASE-T in full duplex
bit 2: device supports 100BASE-TX
bit 3: device supports 100BASE-TX in full duplex
bit 4: device supports 100BASE-T4
bit 5: pause
bit 6: asymmetric pause for full duplex
bit 7: reserved

The acknowledgement bit is used to signal the correct reception of the
base code word. This corresponds to having received three identical
copies of the base code word. Upon receiving these three identical
copies, the device sends a link code word with the acknowledge bit set
to one from six times to eight times.

The link code words are also called pages. The base link code word is
therefore called a base page. The next page bit of the base page is 1
when the device intends to send other pages, which can be used to
communicate other abilities. These additional pages are sent only if
both devices have sent base pages with a next page bit set to 1. The
additional pages are still encoded as link code words (using 17 clock
pulses and up to 16 bit pulses

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:27:37 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:40:24 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:04:11 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:56:57 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

Clare--I want to make something clear. I am having a problem with the
fellow who is asserting that if you run a CAT6 cable to your garage
you end up with fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers
and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the
dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living
together . . .

I have never known _you_ to give advice regarding network that was
other than sane and straightforward.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

SNIPP

If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.

Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
wire.

8 strands of barbed wire I assume?????

Yep.

https://www.wband.com/2002/05/wideba...onal-magazine/

IIRC Broadcomm was demonstrating their interface chips--they did a
similar one with 100baseT a few years earlier.

That was specific to WideBand Corps implementation of 1000Bt
networking. Not everyone's implementation was as robust!!!

It will NOT downgrade it's speed as required to maintain connectivity.
Instead it will fail and retry, and fail again, untill it manages to
successfully pass the packet. This will NOT result in gagabit speeds -
likely even less than 10BT speeds.

I was having trouble with the computer I am using right now.

Periodically Internet access would slow to a crawl. Speed was all
over the map. The network connection would drop from gigabit to 100
mbit. Speedtest would show speeds as low as 5 Mb/sec but usually more
like 50 and sometimes back up to 300 (limit here is my ISP).

Finally tracked down the problem. There was a patch cable that had
gotten walked on, had furniture run over it, been gnawed by rodents,
and was in a few spots there was bare wire poking out,. Sometimes it
was _still_ carrying 300+ Mb/sec.

It's not as fragile as people think it is, at least not when it's
being run in a typical residential environment where runs are,
compared to what the spec allows, quite short. If you're working
right at the limit of what it can do, where signal attenuation is
piled on top of everything else it's another story, but that doesn't
typically happen in somebody's house.

You want to try in a 300 ft long building with various itterations of
cat5/cat5e cabling running both bundled and helter-skelter, some in
troughs, some not - running both over and beside flourescent lamp
troughs, down walls behind service panels, under floors, over
suspended ceilings, with "noisy" led lighting, you name it - with
servers and switches in 2 different areas of the building, with 2
separate networks interlinked (one data, one voip) and other
challenges.
The voip was POE 10/100 - the data mostly 1000BT.

There is a reason IT techs like myself keep our hair cut short!!!!

The thing is though, that's not the situation we're discussing, we're
discussing running a line from somebody's house to somebody's garage.
Unless it's the Gates Mansion or Mar A Lago or some such that
shouldn't be even coming close to the span limits.

Note, I work in such a building--I should send you a photo of the
tunnel sometime. But fortunately I don't have to maintain the
network--by some weird quirk of fate I am now a finance guy.
For the situation being discussed, an old 10B5 co-ax would likely do
the job - - - -
Regardless, for a cabled connection I WOULD bury it - but I'd be
pretty tempted to run a secured wifi if I was not doing anything
particularly sensitive (ie - no internet banking).

Early in my carreer I had a contract with a software developer locally
with 2 buildings connected by an IR link - back in the co-ax days.
What a total pain in the ass that link was!!!! Same place that had
such a slow network it was painfull. A whole bunch of engineers and
they couldn't figure out if you only needed a 10 ft co-ax drop, a 10
foot drop was infinitely better than a 50 foot coil of co-ax bundled
behind the desk..
I must have taken close to 1000 ft of cable out of that building - and
miraculously the network kicked into over-drive!!! Didn't help the
remote link though - went down every time it rained or snowed, and in
the fall when the leaves started to blow around - - - and it was only
less than 200 feet - - -

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:44:12 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:02 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.

I don't believe that at all. Antenna diversity and MIMO solve these
problems in all but the most dense living situations.

Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

There is such a thing as "fast enough". We have exactly one wired link
in our house (that the cable company put in), basically because
there's no point in adding any more.

Wait till you see a decent fiber optic system and the possible speeds
and want to run 4k TV on wire for viewing new movies, especially on
more than one TV at a time. with full sound, using limited compression
and loss of musical tones.

Already done. Works fine.

Of course with the way my ears are going.

Audio bandwidth is miniscule.

Music, not voice.

Um, music *is* audio. Even *uncompressed* digital music is only
1.5Mb/channel. I repeat - miniscule bandwidth.

Voice is a whole lot less.

Less than miniscule? OK, it's less than miniscule. So what?

My video audio system has seven channels for sound. Multiply that by
three movies going on at the same time and it starts adding up, then
add the rest of the network traffic to it.

So that's still miniscule bandwidth.

Is it small, yes. Is it something that should be ignored, perhaps, but
if you are not aware of it and your bandwidth seems to be seriously
degrading you need to be aware of it.

It *IS* small. Something that CAN be ignored on GBE.

I have had occasion when doing a video chat that its signal was
seriously degraded due to a busy nic from background downloading of a
major update. It has happened enough times that I now make sure
everything's up to date so I can talk to my kids and grand kids. Then
again, I suppose I could use a managed switch and program it to offset
the issue. But you have to draw the line somewhere to be cost
effective.

But it was NOT the audio that was causing the issue. Good grief!

Of course not, that is why I mentioned Total System Load.

Have you ever logged traffic on a network? Including collisions

More of your outdated knowledge. Collisions haven't been part of
Ethernet for a very long time.

Can be with half duplex. That's 10-100 ( not always - but more often
than you would think) or giga over 4 pairs.
Not state of the art by any stretch, but still SURPRISINGLY common -
- - -

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:19:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:12:23 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:47:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in news

Funnier part... finding this pipe under the pad distracted me so much
that I forgot that I had already figured all this out. :-)
I can't use that path because it I would have to take a hard right
turn and then another left to go around the end of the septic system's
leach field. I don't like the prospect of pulling #6 through those
bends on a 100'+ run.

On the far edge of the driveway is a row of 80ft Poplars. Because I
don't want to dig through their major roots, I can't use a ditch-witch
to trench that path.

At the corner of the garage where I intended to start the underground
conduit, there is an expansion joint in the parking area pad with
asphalt expansion joint filler. The path along that joint is far
enough away from the leach bed and far enough from the tree roots that
I can go straight back along that expansion joint.
All I have to do is rent a concrete saw and make one cut a few inches
from the existing expansion joint and then fill it back in with
Quickcrete when I'm done laying the conduit.

That will be easier than hand digging a trench around 3-4" tree roots
and trying to weave the conduit over and under them.



My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to the
garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be worth
digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a punch down
connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you take
certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you must go
close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded pipe. I
didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I didn't research
them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.

I am Cisco certified, it is not recommended.


60 cycle interference?

In is unsafe to take a chance with high voltage crossing over to a
consumer device. There is also the electromagnetic effect, especially
on an A/C system with its varying loads. On systems with variable
speed drives there are multiple problems, and it is also a Code
violation in most places. It is not even recommended to mix land line
phone lines in the walls, or conduit, and any box.

Then I suppose they don't really make these things.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Carlon-2-Gang-Dual-Voltage-Box-and-Bracket-SC200DVR/100146034


Yes they do, for a phone line and a cable TV hookup on one side and
power on the other side. The EMI On 110 has very little effect on
those items. As to the Satellite TV guys they would refuse to do it
that way, they are trained to keep them separate on Direct TV.

If only Direct TV installers were sharp enough to get out of bed in
the morning.


EMI isn't the issue, here. It's safety and that isn't a big deal
in-wall, either.

If you run the power and other lines neatly together it is your
problem.

It's not a problem.

I have run across EMI issues in the past when it was least expected.

Not from AC line to Ethernet.

Yes, I have.

Nonsense.

That only shows your lack of experience or knowledge.

HAND

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 23:30:26 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:44:12 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:02 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.

I don't believe that at all. Antenna diversity and MIMO solve these
problems in all but the most dense living situations.

Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

There is such a thing as "fast enough". We have exactly one wired link
in our house (that the cable company put in), basically because
there's no point in adding any more.

Wait till you see a decent fiber optic system and the possible speeds
and want to run 4k TV on wire for viewing new movies, especially on
more than one TV at a time. with full sound, using limited compression
and loss of musical tones.

Already done. Works fine.

Of course with the way my ears are going.

Audio bandwidth is miniscule.

Music, not voice.

Um, music *is* audio. Even *uncompressed* digital music is only
1.5Mb/channel. I repeat - miniscule bandwidth.

Voice is a whole lot less.

Less than miniscule? OK, it's less than miniscule. So what?

My video audio system has seven channels for sound. Multiply that by
three movies going on at the same time and it starts adding up, then
add the rest of the network traffic to it.

So that's still miniscule bandwidth.

Is it small, yes. Is it something that should be ignored, perhaps, but
if you are not aware of it and your bandwidth seems to be seriously
degrading you need to be aware of it.

It *IS* small. Something that CAN be ignored on GBE.

I have had occasion when doing a video chat that its signal was
seriously degraded due to a busy nic from background downloading of a
major update. It has happened enough times that I now make sure
everything's up to date so I can talk to my kids and grand kids. Then
again, I suppose I could use a managed switch and program it to offset
the issue. But you have to draw the line somewhere to be cost
effective.

But it was NOT the audio that was causing the issue. Good grief!

Of course not, that is why I mentioned Total System Load.

Have you ever logged traffic on a network? Including collisions

More of your outdated knowledge. Collisions haven't been part of
Ethernet for a very long time.

Can be with half duplex. That's 10-100 ( not always - but more often
than you would think) or giga over 4 pairs.

If you're running half-duplex today there's something wrong.

Not state of the art by any stretch, but still SURPRISINGLY common -
- - -

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:50:38 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:19:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:12:23 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:47:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in news

Funnier part... finding this pipe under the pad distracted me so much
that I forgot that I had already figured all this out. :-)
I can't use that path because it I would have to take a hard right
turn and then another left to go around the end of the septic system's
leach field. I don't like the prospect of pulling #6 through those
bends on a 100'+ run.

On the far edge of the driveway is a row of 80ft Poplars. Because I
don't want to dig through their major roots, I can't use a ditch-witch
to trench that path.

At the corner of the garage where I intended to start the underground
conduit, there is an expansion joint in the parking area pad with
asphalt expansion joint filler. The path along that joint is far
enough away from the leach bed and far enough from the tree roots that
I can go straight back along that expansion joint.
All I have to do is rent a concrete saw and make one cut a few inches
from the existing expansion joint and then fill it back in with
Quickcrete when I'm done laying the conduit.

That will be easier than hand digging a trench around 3-4" tree roots
and trying to weave the conduit over and under them.



My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to the
garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be worth
digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a punch down
connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you take
certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you must go
close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded pipe. I
didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I didn't research
them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.

I am Cisco certified, it is not recommended.


60 cycle interference?

In is unsafe to take a chance with high voltage crossing over to a
consumer device. There is also the electromagnetic effect, especially
on an A/C system with its varying loads. On systems with variable
speed drives there are multiple problems, and it is also a Code
violation in most places. It is not even recommended to mix land line
phone lines in the walls, or conduit, and any box.

Then I suppose they don't really make these things.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Carlon-2-Gang-Dual-Voltage-Box-and-Bracket-SC200DVR/100146034


Yes they do, for a phone line and a cable TV hookup on one side and
power on the other side. The EMI On 110 has very little effect on
those items. As to the Satellite TV guys they would refuse to do it
that way, they are trained to keep them separate on Direct TV.

If only Direct TV installers were sharp enough to get out of bed in
the morning.


EMI isn't the issue, here. It's safety and that isn't a big deal
in-wall, either.

If you run the power and other lines neatly together it is your
problem.

It's not a problem.

I have run across EMI issues in the past when it was least expected.

Not from AC line to Ethernet.

Yes, I have.

Nonsense.

That only shows your lack of experience or knowledge.

Wrong, of course. It shows I know something about the design of these
things.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:02 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.

I don't believe that at all. Antenna diversity and MIMO solve these
problems in all but the most dense living situations.

Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

There is such a thing as "fast enough". We have exactly one wired link
in our house (that the cable company put in), basically because
there's no point in adding any more.

Wait till you see a decent fiber optic system and the possible speeds
and want to run 4k TV on wire for viewing new movies, especially on
more than one TV at a time. with full sound, using limited compression
and loss of musical tones.

Already done. Works fine.

Of course with the way my ears are going.

Audio bandwidth is miniscule.

Music, not voice.

Um, music *is* audio. Even *uncompressed* digital music is only
1.5Mb/channel. I repeat - miniscule bandwidth.

Voice is a whole lot less.

Less than miniscule? OK, it's less than miniscule. So what?

My video audio system has seven channels for sound. Multiply that by
three movies going on at the same time and it starts adding up, then
add the rest of the network traffic to it.

So that's still miniscule bandwidth.

Is it small, yes. Is it something that should be ignored, perhaps, but
if you are not aware of it and your bandwidth seems to be seriously
degrading you need to be aware of it.

It *IS* small. Something that CAN be ignored on GBE.

I have had occasion when doing a video chat that its signal was
seriously degraded due to a busy nic from background downloading of a
major update. It has happened enough times that I now make sure
everything's up to date so I can talk to my kids and grand kids. Then
again, I suppose I could use a managed switch and program it to offset
the issue. But you have to draw the line somewhere to be cost
effective.

But it was NOT the audio that was causing the issue. Good grief!

Of course not, that is why I mentioned Total System Load.

But the fact that there was audio involved is irrelevant. IOW, you
brought it in as a red herring.

Have you ever logged traffic on a network? Including collisions
because of it? I have, and that is why I am aware of the variables and
take them all into account. I don't just blow things off as
inconsequential until after inspection.

Collisions? In a switched network? Really? Are you sure the last
time you did this stuff, it wasn't 10base2?