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

Page 8 of 12  
On 12/26/2011 11:51 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

port router and you need to be aware of it's address so there are no conflicts when you attached your router. [I think Jeff cringes when I say one port router, but I don't know what else to call it.]
Maybe the idea is if you just had a switch after the modem rather than a wifi router, you would need some management features in the modem. In my case, I DMZ the modem to the router, and then do all management from the router.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are/were plenty of one port routers on the market, especially if we mean one LAN port.** That's all that are needed, and the minimal number of ports doesn't make it any less of a router. It just means you'll probably connect the switch of your choice to the LAN side rather than use the built-in switch (since in the case of a one port router there is no built in switch).
**Technically, a router can get by with just one port which would be used for both WAN and LAN, but I don't know of any examples of that, given the context of this discussion.
I still don't know why there would be possible address conflicts, though. Properly configured, a router never has the same subnet on its WAN and LAN sides.
Oh, wait, Jeff mentioned that some DSL modem/routers default to a certain IP range on their LAN side, and adding a second router might introduce the possibility of THAT device also wanting to use that same IP range. But in his example, the DSL modem/router auto configured itself to avoid the conflict. The possibility exists, I suppose, that not all DSL modem/routers are smart enough to auto configure themselves that way, and some standalone routers don't give the user the capability to configure the LAN subnet. Nearly all of my recent experience is with dd-wrt, though, so configuring the subnet is second nature and I sometimes forget that stock firmware may not offer that.

Correct. If you use a switch with a combo modem/router device, the router in the combo device is where you'll make all of your configurations. However, if you add a second router in series, then it makes sense to "DMZ the modem to the router", as you call it, and then make all of your configurations in the second router.
Yes, I know "DMZ" is the wrong term for what we're discussing, but Linksys bastardized it long ago so I'm just using it the way they do. Network engineers no doubt are cringing, as they should.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I remember the good old days when the phone company did the telephone wiring.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
wrote:

port router and you need to be aware of it's address so there are no conflicts when you attached your router. [I think Jeff cringes when I say one port router, but I don't know what else to call it.]
Maybe the idea is if you just had a switch after the modem rather than a wifi router, you would need some management features in the modem. In my case, I DMZ the modem to the router, and then do all management from the router.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

This part got answered later in the thread. It's because people are ignoring the router built into the modem and adding a second router, usually for reasons unknown.

This part didn't get answered, other than the fact that some people perhaps didn't realize their modem/router combo even had a router, so they added what they thought was the only modem, but it turned out they were running two modems in series. RTFM usually helps.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I think you mean two ->routers<- in series.
I thought I answered that question in a past pontification. Maybe not. I'll try again.
AT&T does sell conglomerated DSL modem, router, and wireless. It's the 2wire 2701HG-B. They work just fine (as long as the wall wart stays functional). It includes a setup program from 2wire that makes the setup and troubleshooting fairly simple.
AT&T does some really dumb|strange things. The double NAT is so that they can stuff the PPPoE login and password into the DSL modem, which they control, and not have to deal with stuffing the PPPoE login and password into either the customers router or computah, which AT&T does not control. There's no technical reason why they should do it this way except that it's easier if the DSL modem has a single IP address DHCP server built in, so that anyone can plug in a PC set to DHCP, get an IP address, and immediately connect to the management IP address of the DSL modem. The alternative would be to setup a static IP address in the computer, which is kinda messy.
The reason the double NAT works is that ALL the IP ports are redirected to the single IP address on the ethernet port. Therefore, there's no port forwarding or firewall holes to deal with. Also, no configuration issues.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Good so far, to which I replied that forwarding all the ports to a single IP is standard router stuff. Every junk router does it. Linksys calls it a DMZ. It's barely worth mentioning, except that it's nice that they do it by default rather than having the customer explicitly do it.
But then you went on to say that forwarding all the ports to a single IP meant that adding more than one computer would result in the extra computers not working, to which I pointed out that that has nothing to do with port forwarding, but is simply the fact that only a single IP address is available. No sense worrying about port forwarding when you don't have an IP address to forward to.
Have we beat this horse to death yet?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:39:05 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Nope. There were no *PASSIVE* ethernet hubs. Passive means that there's no powered electronics inside. You can combine (mix) data on a token passing network, such are Arcnet, but not with ethernet. You could consider 10base5 or 10base2 to be some manner of distributed passive hub, but that's not common terminology.

If it's in print, it's obsolete.

Correct. A hub is also called a multiport repeater (especially in IEEE documents, which drive me nuts). <http://www.linfo.org/hub.html
Detail: 1. A two port ethernet switch is called a bridge. 2. All 802.11 wireless is bridging. While there may be layer 3 IP configuration for the router section, the actual wireless traffic is bridging. 3.

I haven't seen many large hubs for perhaps 15 years. Compex TX3264U 64 port hub is one. Cisco had a large hubs, but I can't find the number. They not common.
What limits the speed of the hub is that it can go no faster than the rated wire speed of a single port. For example, if I had a 100baseT hub, and was running a network backup between two ports, there would be zero bandwidth available to the other ports. Needless to say, hubs don't scale very well and are easily maxed out.
Ethernet switches don't have that problem. There are two basic types, bus and crossbar. The bus type bandwidth is limited by the bandwidth of the internal backplane. 2GHz is typical. You can transfer data between any two ports at wire speed. You can also have independent (non-blocking) transfers between two other ports, up until the available bus bandwidth is exhausted. For example, a 100baseT switch, with a 2GHz bus, can use up to: 2000 / 100 = 20 pairs of ports. That limits this particular switch to 40 ports before it runs out of bus bandwidth. The crossbar switch is simply a cross point switch between any two ports. This becomes unwieldy with a large number of ports, because every time you double the number of ports, you need 4 times the number of cross points. It is cheap and effective up to about 32 ports. Of course, there are hybrids between the two types.

That's called collision domains. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_domain>

Not quite. Switches pass broadcast packets to all ports. This is one of the big headaches with large wireless LANs, which can easily (and quite often) end up belching nothing but broadcasts (ARP requests etc). I've sniffed a (now defunct) muni wi-fi system that was doing that. Little wonder users found it slow and useless.
What ethernet switches will NOT pass are collisions, corrupted packets, malformed packets, garbage, jabber, and noise. Not passing collisions is why it's called a collision domain.

Discarding packets is something that an ethernet card, in a PC, does quite easily and neatly. The card just looks at the header and determines if the destination is the local device. If not, it just drops the packet. This is all done in hardware on the ethernet card and does not involve the CPU. The time wasted by dropping packets cannot be recovered, which will certainly have an impact on speed, but it will not slow down the computah.

Yep.
Sorta. Many managed ethernet switches (i.e. Cisco) allow some ports to be configured as a hub. These are intended for monitoring traffic on other ports. Since the monitor port will not be used for any incoming traffic, there's no slow down caused by it monopolizing the switch bus bandwidth. It's very handy for network management, traffic monitoring, diagnostics, snooping, and playing around. Otherwise, hubs are a bad nightmare that are thankfully obsolete. A clue is that you can't buy a brand new ethernet hub anywhere.
--
Jeff Liebermann snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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!)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 05:03:03 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee

I have the scars to prove it.

Sigh. Like I said, there are no simple installs.

Looks ok to me. Nothing much to complain about here. Well, don't forget to use anti-seize grease on the threaded pipe mast.

Looks like someone built up the wall with battens, wallboard, and floor tiles glued to the wallboard. What are the wall tiles made from? I think I can see why the stud finder didn't work. The studs are too far away.
--
Jeff Liebermann snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:28:22 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I assembled the mast with water pipe so that I could disassemble it at will; but I hadn't thought about the gray anti-seize paste idea!

You are right that it's definitely floor tile (which feels like a stone of some sort) that is on top of an existing wall!
I think it's a remodel where they had left-over floor tiles so they put it on the wall (for some whacko reason).
The wall-within-a-wall actually isn't a problem since I'll just drill through the inside wall (I have a six-foot long drill bit!) to easily get to the crawl space behind it - but it 'was' a surprise to see a second wall a two-by-four's width inside of the outside wall.
Here is another picture:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Where do most of you buy about 250 feet of cat5e cable? ( Here is a picture of what I bought for $75 + San Jose tax)


Yes. But.
My new WISP is asking me to put the first device (UBNT M2) in 'bridge' mode so that it would be on my WISP provider's subnet (Santa Cruz Mountains).

My portable Skype phone works - but sometimes on outgoing calls (which is the only way I use it) it only hears one end of the conversation. Could 'that' be related to the double NAT?

I understand the suggestion. In effect, I think both the NAT & the DHCP will be removed when/if I follow my WISP's recent (yesterday) suggestion to configure the Ubuntu Bullet M2 in "bridge" mode and change the IP address to be on his subnet.

connector is in the CENTERLINE of the antenna (which seems to me to be the dumbest place to be!).
The problem with the centerline is that the mast is in that same centerline! So, you can't have any mast ABOVE the antenna.
Here is a picture I took tonight of what I mean:

You can see the bullet-shaped white Ubiquiti M2 screwed directly into the back of the 19 dBi planar antenna, tilted slightly upward.
In the future, if I want to add a TV antenna, I'd have to move the bullet M2 out of the centerline anyway. So, at that point, I'll need "a" patch cord anyway.
Your discussion on the signal losses in that pigtail are interesting!

This is a picture of what I bought from "Home Despot" for $75 + tax:

Does it look OK for the 3 runs below? a) About 100 feet from the antenna to the garage (zig zagging outdoors & buried just underground) ... and then continuous to ... b) About 25 feet from the garage to the crawl space up to the office (zig zagging all indoors) c) About 25 separate feet from the office back down to the crawl space and horizontally over to the game room

That makes sense because that was the "right way(tm)" to wire the game room; if I were to wire the garage, then it makes sense to be similar to the game room in concept (i.e., a 'dead wire' run from the office to the garage).

I have no problem running two cables - so - I won't consider doubling up anymore. I have three times more cat5e cable than I need anyway. And, these pictures of the crawl space show I have plenty of room.
I just need to drill a bigger hole! :)
Picture of crawl space view up into the floor of the office
Picture of entrance hole in the wall of the office: www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7212874/1024/Anonymous/cat5-questions.gif
Picture of crawl space view over to the game room (far end of house):
Picture of hole in the wall of the game room:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No matter how badly written you may think Skype is, my guess is that it's much (MUCH!) worse than you think, if this presentation is to be believed.
<http://www.secdev.org/conf/skype_BHEU06.handout.pdf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Thanks. That's awful, but understandable. They want to be sure you don't clone the protocol with another application, or use the Skype client on a non-Skype system. I just wished they didn't have to destroy the code quality in order to accomplish this. No clue if Microsloth can clean up the mess. Hopefully yes, because I like and use Skype, despite the glitches.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/27/2011 5:34 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

My solution to SKYPE is to use it as little as possible. I can't even use all my minutes.
As an alternative to SKYPE, some wireless plans support UMA. You maintain your own phone number and all the wifi calls are covered under one fee.
In the states, as far as I know, only T-mobile supports UMA. When you need it, it is a godsend. I've been in buildings where cellular can't reach the interior, but the UMA worked fine over the wifi.
Google Talk is supposedly similar, but google doesn't have the failure is not an option mentality of a telecom provider. [Less so past the AT$T breakup, but you get my point.]
UMA is an interesting technological black hole. It has a real potential for hacker mischief, so public documentation is a bit slim. My ISP, which sells their own VOIP, was blocking what they considered 3rd party VOIP. They denied it, but repeated complaints made the problem go away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 09:08:00 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I paid $75 for 500 feet of this (CMR CMX Outdoor RoHS) cable!

I see your $44 cable is for twice that, at 1000 feet!
The only problem, I guess, is it's not outdoor (from what I can tell): CAT5E 1000FT BULK UTP CABLE ETHERNET LAN NETWORK CAT5 1000 PULL BOX WHITE
However, only the first 100 feet of my installation actually 'needed' to be outdoor cable. The rest is indoor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:13:53 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee

The stuff I excavated on eBay is not outdoor cable. There are various flavors of outdoor cable. What I think you have is UV proof but not not waterproof (gel filled). I can't tell from here and the Comtran web pile is useless: <http://www.comtrancorp.com
However the problem is not UV protection. Since you're just dumping the cable on the ground, you're going to punch holes in it every time someone walks on it. Same with critters chewing on the cable. What you'll need is UV proof, water proof (gel filled), and armoured. Or, you can use some form of conduit.
Don't spiral the coax down the mast. When you drop the mast for maintenance, you leave far too many opportunities to punch holes in the coax when it hits the ground. Same with leaning a ladder against the mast for inspection. Also visualize what multiple cables going down the mast will look like. Run the cables down the BACK side of the mast and secure with black, UV proof, ty-wraps.
Also, in a previous post, you mentioned other electronics stores in the SF Bay area. Here's a map, <http://ziiz.co/map created by Glenn Geller, as posted in ba.internet.
--
Jeff Liebermann snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 08:43:22 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I agree.

Conduit is what I'll use then.

OK. The logic (once I know it) is impeccable. Will do.

Wow. Very nice. I didn't know about lots of them, for example, HomeTech Solutions off of DeAnza. Wow. More than I ever knew. Lots better than Home Depot! :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 09:08:00 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Hi Jeff,
It's Hilltop. And it's 802.11, not NV2.
They're an easy line-of-sight connection at -65 dBm yet the AP is about a mile or two away (hard to tell just by looking). (I always wondered if the ACK information in the radio is accurate for telling me how far the AP is actually away from me?)

Hilltop told me to put the radio in bridge mode but they said they preferred the extra protection of router mode - but they didn't want to get fancy on the initial setup.
Here's my water-pipe antenna, simply stuck into an existing hole in the ground!


I was originally in router mode, with NAT on the radio ... so I 'think' I was originally double nat'd. But, now I'm in bridge mode (because the WISP provider had me change access points to one that didn't do DHCP).
My setup now is bridge mode with the WISP-supplied IP address and the WISP supplied gateway. Then I have my broadband router.
So the only firewall is the broadband router.
Here's a picture of the antenna and radio (set up as a bridge) on the ground:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.