Does having multiple RJ45 jacks degrade the Internet signal a lot?

[clare]

With that distance, and setup, one piece to the center of the house would be my recommendation.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Cringe. I promised myself that I would not get involved in any more security discussions. However, since this is a holiday...

The real problem with Wi-Fi security is the shared key. All wireless clients on your network use the same shared key. If the key is compromised, so is the entire network. There are complex ways to sniff the traffic and recover the WEP/WPA key, but it's much easier to simply borrow a laptop on the network, and recover a hashed key from the registry:

In other words, the very concept of a shared key is lacking.

What's needed is a one time key, which does not need to be remembered. This is accomplished with WPA-RADIUS. The user is presented with a unique per-user login and password. The RADIUS server then delivers a one-time, per session, and unique key. You could sniff the key, but it would only be good for that session. Few home networks offer this level of key management, although it's common in corporate networks.

Chuckle. I've been tempted to offer a prize to anyone that can demonstrate a streaming wireless connection that will do 300Mbits. I know that it's been done in the lab (controlled environment) and with dual band channel bonding, but I seriously doubt it can be done in the presence of interference and uncontrolled reflections. The only reason manufacturers offer gigabit ethernet ports is that they would look rather foolish offering 100Mbits/sec ports on a router theoretically capable of 300Mbits/sec wireless.

As for wired being more secure, I beg to differ. I have a small collection of ethernet taps, that I use to sniff traffic for network troubleshooting. If I wanted to sniff your network, I would install one between your broadband connection and router. Taping a single ethernet LAN port won't work because it will only see traffic on that port and broadcast traffic.

I've done about 700Mbits/sec. I forgot the exact hardware but I do recall that I had to tune both the client and server computers IP stack to get decent performance. Out of the box, I think it was about

300Mbits/sec. For testing, I use iPerf and JPerf.

I've never seen an easy run on a rework job. There's always some complication involved. The easier it looks, the more complicated it will become.

[clare]

I would not put jacks next to the router, myself. I'd just put plugs on the end of the cable and plug them directly into the router or switch.. Put jacks in the wall at the endpoint.

Connections that do not exist cannot cause problems in the future. Using a jack and jumper at the router adds 4 sets of connections to each run. That's 32 actual potential points of failure (of which 8 are critical on 10/100 without POE, which are totally un-needed.

[clare]

I don't see any reason why not - but a few questions. The antenna is a router ? - so inside for the wireless you only want an ACCESS POINT. Is the WRT54G capable of working as an access point?

Apparently yes: From googling

Settings to change (obviously, do this while plugged into a LAN port on it): Setup > basic setup > select 'auto config DHCP' in the connection type drop-down; enter a good (outside of your DHCP range) IP address (and, of course, match your current subnet); and click 'disable' on the DHCP server line. Then (here's where it becomes an AP; but, the wording's a bit wierd): Setup > advanced routing > select 'router' from the operating mode drop-down (in Linksys, Router = AP, Gateway = Router); 'both' on the dynamic routing line; and 'LAN & Wireless' on the interface entry.

Of course, remember to click the 'save changes' button before you go on to the next screen. Do, this, and your WRT54G is now a switch/WAP

Any reason not to just put the access point at the entry point, as it is also an active switch? Is the wireless range adequate???.

I'd try that first - and if the range is insufficient, move it upstairs to the center of the house and add the switch.

[clare]

It is. See my last posting

[clare]

I would not bother splitting the cable - you have enough cable to do it right and run 2 cables - which will allow you to move to gigabyte ethernet later if technology dictates. Gives you redundancy too.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote: (blah-blah=blah...)

I forgot to mumble something about the location of the wireless router. In general, the place where all the wires come together in a star topology is a rats nest of cables. In home installation, the mess is usually hidden behind a desk, behind the TV, in a closet, inside a drawer, or buried in the garage:

The ethernet wires like to live close to the floor. However, wireless likes to live as high as possible in order to avoid obstructions in the house (i.e. furniture). It might be useful to locate the wireless router on a high shelf, while hiding the ethernet switch somewhere near the floor.

Incidentally, the stiff heavy black cables coming out of the back wall are gel filled, shielded, and thick jacketed CAT5 cable. The ends are terminated with special RJ45 plugs designed to accommodate the oversized cable. There was enough spring tension in the cables to unplug themselves.

The cables ran underground near a swimming pool which apparently leaked a bit. That made the wires continuously wet. The jacket and sticky gooey gel prevented moisture incursion into the cable, but did nothing to prevent water from creeping over the outside of the cable, and dripping into the cabinet box. A drip loop at the point of entry would have prevented this, but that was impossible due to the method of installation and the rather stiff cable. I ended up wrapping the cables in a sponge, with vinyl tubing to a collection bucket.

[Stephen]

Well - only if you define the domain as a single segment - and star based Ethernet these days uses switches, and i think you are explaining about topology in a single wiring closet, where a star on 1 switch is the easiest way to set it up.

But the topology between Ethernet switches can be pretty arbitary once you hvae nore than 1 device - as long as you stay with a tree, or run

1 of the protocols designed to make sure any loops do not cause problems (spanning tree, 802.1s/w RPR, etc)

[Stephen]

True

But - wiring tends to have a much longer lifetime than the equipment hung on the end of it - not becuase it costs much, but because of the hassle and disruption of changing it.

So my preference and the way i have wired up the later runs at home after this hit me the 1st time is

1. run more sets of cables than you need - always seem to use more than i tohught i might need......
2. terminate the fixed wiring on a panel or a wall jack.

That way when the "puppy attack" mentioned by Jeff happens, you just replace a damaged patch lead, rather than the entire run, buried in the walls.

[Justin Time]

Since you're in the business, I can't dispute your experience and I'm sure you've had your fair share. Perhaps my location provides an interference free area thus serving my satisfaction of wireless. Being I work within a University, the connection is fairly sound as well, though, don't get me wrong, has had it's fair share of problems. Overall, I think it's safe to assume the location plays a role when going wireless and I won't dispute wired having a greater advantage over wireless. I just didn't think it was as bad as the rebuttal. It won't be the first time I'm wrong. ;)

[miso]

Besides the drip line, you might want to google waterproof cable entry

There a probably a thousand schemes for cable entry. I've even see hacks of the cable entry used to get mains into the house. I got a bunch of Andrews cable entries that showed up an a surplus shop. Andrews is what they use in repeater sites, cellular sites, etc.

[miso]

I've had really bad luck with Netgear, which is why I suggested Dlink. YMMV. Dlink has metal gate versions of their gear.

Regarding double NAT, that is really annoying. Some routers can detect the double NAT (don't ask me how) and warn you.

Most DSL modems are one port routers. This can lead to address conflicts. I really wish the modem manufacturers just expected the customer to use a router. I don't know one person with broadband that doesn't have a router attached. AT$T stared selling DSL modems with routers probably to stop the customer service calls.

[Chuck Banshee]

That was the original plan.

Nope.

I only need ONE in the game room.

What you are saying hits on the original design objective. I wish my command of English were better because I confused everyone (I think) because I'm confused HOW to wire from the router to the game room in this scenario.

Is this the correct scenario for the sum total of the house wiring?

1. Cat5 cable enters house at lowered garage at the near end of the house
2. Cat5 continues into crawl space & into office floor in house center
3. Cat5 ends at a single female RJ45 in the (centrally located) office
4. Another cat5 cable starts at another single RJ45 in the office wall
5. That (inactive) cat5 goes down into the crawl space to the game room
6. That (inactive) cat5 ends at a single RJ45 jack in the game room

If that is the correct wiring sequence, then I can do that relatively easily.

Now comes the active connections.

In the office - this is what I was planning: a) The POE sits in the office, one end connected to the wall plate. b) The other end of the POE connects to the Linksys WRT54G broadband wireless router (which also has four LAN ports in the back) c) One LAN port of the WRT54G goes to the desktop computer d) Another LAN port of the WRT54G goes to the Belkin VOIP desktop phone

At this point, everything but the game room is now working. The problem is that the game room is too far away for a good signal out of the WRT54G.

I have two options (I think) for the 'game room' at the far end of the house: I. Add a wireless "repeater" of some sort (the purchase & setup of which I am unfamiliar) II. Add a cabled connection

THIS IS THE PART THAT WAS CONFUSING ME IN THE BEGINNING:

If I go with the cabled connection to the game room, is it 'this' simple? A. I attach a jumper from the LAN port on the back of the WRT54G to the second office wall plate ...(this 2nd office wall plate is just a connection to the game room wall plate through the crawl space) B. I attach a jumper from the game room wall plate to the Wii

My original (I agree confused) question was: Is it 'that' simple to add the game room as a wired connection?

NOTE: It seems weird to me to have a 'dead' wire simply going from the office wall plate to the game room wall plate.

[Chuck Banshee]

The salmon colored Home Depot outdoor-rated solid conductor cat5 cable ($75 for 500 feet) is 24 AWG.

I'm guessing it's ~100 feet to the office in the center of the house (including zig zags inherent in routing the wire).

The POE is 15 volts (but I have no problem buying a higher-voltage POE if that is what is needed).

I guess I 'could' go up in size to 23 AWG cat5 cable - but the initial comments intimated this gauge solid wire should be find for three times the distance I'm calculating. (I think.)

[Jeff Liebermann]

In California, all the cities and counties have low voltage wiring inspections as part of code compliance. In most cases, they simply require compliance to the latest NEC wiring codes. They may add their own details, but the basic requirements will need to be met. Incidentally, the Peoples Republic of Santa Cruz requires a permit for any construction costing over $500.

It's not the wiring that's the problem. It's how it's mounted and what it's made from. For example, you need to run plenum cable through air spaces. Plenum cable does not generate much smoke and will therefore not asphixiate fire fighters. Proper support and using riser cable for long vertical runs is simply best practices to prevent the wire falling or breaking under its own weight.

Try this quiz for practice:

Plenty more:

From my limited and somewhat dated experience, the inspector doesn't care much about sloppy LAN wiring. He's probably a former electrician or contractor and doesn't know much about LAN wiring anyway. He does care that the low voltage wiring is at least 2" away from AC power, that it doesn't share any wall outlet boxes, and that it's not running high currents through the cabling. Incidentally, some IEEE spec recommends 6" for 120vac and 12" for 240vac. Where there are few cables, the inspection is rather superficial. Where there's a large number of cables (hospital, corporate, data center, etc), the inspections are more thorough.

[Chuck Banshee]

Thank you for that advice (as I was parroting the word "active" from advice given earlier in this helpful thread).

I do greatly appreciate this clarification (just as I did in 'wire' versus 'cable').

I'm already confusing enough to try to understand so I'll try to use 'wire' as a verb; and to drop the 'active' adjective in ethernet switch.

You can ALWAYS correct me as I appreciate the subtleties!

[Jeff Liebermann]

I bought several of those switches. Gigabit works well enough, but I was never able to get close to wire speed with them. I'm not sure if it's the switch or something else. Caveat Emptor.

Huh? An ethernet switch works on ISO layer 2 (MAC layer). DHCP works on layers 2 and 3 (IP layer). As long as the switch can pass broadcast packets (they all should), you should not have any problems with DHCP broadcasts and negotiations. Each port on the switch has its own MAC address. Your DHCP server should be picking up the MAC address of the originating computer, not the local switch. If it grabs the switch MAC address, then yes, it will try to change IP address every time you move the ethernet port. However, that's NOT the way it should work. Double checking:

C:\>arp -a Interface: 192.168.1.11 --- 0x4 Internet Address Physical Address Type 192.168.1.1 00-16-01-97-fd-a6 dynamic

Yep... that's the MAC address of my Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 wireless router, and not the MAC address of the ethernet switch located between my PC and the router.

No comment. I won't generalize by manufacturer. Each one has their winners and their losers. Dlink seems about average.

I recently picked up several Dlink DIR-601 (N150) wireless routers.

These are cheap and basic routers. So far, no problems or failures. I expected problems due to the new "green" features, such as reducing the ethernet transceiver power for short cable lengths, but so far, so good.

[clare]

Not totally true. There were ethernet hubs. You likely can't buy one any more.

from "state of the art netwoking":

By default hubs are single broadcast and single collision domain, which means a device transmitting at a time, transmits to all the devices in the network i.e. it broadcasts every time and every device on the network listens to that broadcast and the one which it is meant for picks it up. It?s anyone?s guess that how efficiently it will work, its okay with one or two or three devices in a network but with network scaling up and more and more devices being connected to it the network dies down. How often we listen the complaints in office or home that the network being slow or down, if there are hubs in the picture that?s what going to happen, because there is no way with hubs you can control LAN traffic congestion. One way to make an ever increasing network is to segment a network in smaller part and that?s when the switches come into picture.

Switches are much more than multi-port repeaters, they are quite intelligent in a way that they recognize the devices connected to it by their addresses, so there is no need to broadcast every time one device want to share something or exchange information with another device. It?s like now when hubs are gone I can talk to my friend by addressing him by name, otherwise with hubs it was like I had to shout from the rooftop for everybody to listen even though they didn?t want to, what I wanted to say to my friend. So the above explanations make switches a single broadcast and multiple collision domains. It broadcasts only in one scenario in which it does not have information about a device in its mapping table for which a particular piece of info is transmitted, so it broadcasts that info that one time and after finding about the device which accepts that it updates it table.

Also hubs operate in half duplex while switches can operate in full duplex mode too. Adding a switch adds a lot of functionality to the network and improves the efficiency of the network too. You can still use hubs as per your networking needs but try using at least one switch in case of a multiple hub network by plugging the hubs to the switch, but an all switched LAN is just always better and I think I?ve provided enough evidence for that.

[Chuck Banshee]

Jeff's words are very interesting words of experience.

It's exactly what I don't have ... so I doubly appreciate the advice!

Especially since I'm finding walls within walls the more I drill deep! :)

Here are some pictures of the setup (to explain what I mean).

Picture taken just now of the WISP antenna setup (jury rigged with extension cords and patch cords until I get the wiring figured out).

Here is what I found when I popped a hole in the game room wall! (there was a hidden wall inside the outside wall!)

[miso]

I can certainly believe the common box issue. Well separated boxes would never pass muster with the lady of the house. Bad enough they try to block outlets with furniture. Your suggestion of wiring two walls on either side of the door is a good one. Almost any wire in a room can be tolerated except if it crosses a door.

Years ago I took a structured wiring "class" at CES, just to see what was happening. This was before the WWW was cranking at 11, though it existed. They suggested two networks per room. I could never get a reasonable explanation for why this was a good idea. Not on different walls, but two networks to the same outlet. Like the person saw it done, but didn't really know why himself. Of course there is no shortage of space on the wall outlet plate for multiple RJ45.

That was where I learned nearly everyone in the class was an ex-alarm installer. Oy!