My rewiring project is *still* ongoing, and I will shortly be replacing the downstairs ring. The downstairs floor is concreted, and so all downstairs sockets are going to be dropped from under the first floor. Although I realise that current practice dictates that the mains cabling must be chased into the wall rather than run in the cavity, (as it is at the moment), I was wondering if I could use the existing mains cable to pull through some CAT-5. i.e. Is it acceptable to run Cat5 within a cavity wall?
Well, it certainly isn't going to *kill* anyone! It's also protected from UV light and so won't suffer from the problems which occur when you run it outside. My only concern would be whether there might be any interaction with the chemical used in cavity wall insulation - if you have it. Has anyone got any thoughts on this?
What problems would you have by running it outside, as im about to do that to wire up the kids bedrooms, i have been told by a computer technician that its ok to run it, would it be better in a type of plastic sleeve or trunking?
It is not UV stable, so would only have a limited life outside, especially if run on a wall subject to direct sunlight. It'll probably work for a few years, though, provided a light colour is used. Running in an outer sleeving or trunking would, indeed, eliminate this problem.
I had to replace a Stat Mux in a college where a data cable layed along the flat roof had picked up a large pulse of electricity from a nearby lightening strike and set fire to the (3000 pound) Mux. ;-(
The one at the other end of the link was also destoyed but didn't catch fire.
I'm not sure it would have been so vunerable if it was 'inside' the building (no kit connected to internally run cabling was affected in the instance given above)?
I know not the OP's actual question but FWIW you could go wireless (saves running cables anywhere)?
Yup. Of course, you then get a whole load of other issues: fixed speed (can't "upgrade" without buying new kit, vs. fixed wiring where buying a gigabit switch for 30quid-the-5port-unbranded flavour in a few years time is realistic), faffing about with security (or giving anyone who wants to a free ride to the Net with whatever undesirable activities pointing back to your NAT box), and uncertain performance - exacerbated if you have near neighbours who also choose to wi-fi next month.
All that said, it's a reasonable alternative to consider, but it's no panacea.
all of the 'issues' mentoned above can be sorted out very easilly and shouldn't be regarded as a reason not to go wireless. all of the security issues mentioned above are still applicable with a wired LAN, anyway.
and, really, who /needs/ a gigabit lan ? a willy waver down the pub ! ;-)
Not to mntine the mess if you install foild backed plasterbaird, oruse metal lathe and render, or have a large meatllic plate under your receiver etc etec ad nauseam.
There are a whole bunch of issues related to wireless LAN that are not applicable to wired networks:
- Coverage. Depending on the property, multiple access points may be required.
- Susceptibility to interference from other equipment on the ISM band including other WLANs. These are not always easily cured.
- Security. The built in WEP encryption is weak and can be circumvented relatively easily. Additional methods of access control such as selection of legitimate MAC addresses can be spoofed by a nine year old. To obtain reasonable privacy of data and access to resources one has to implement stronger encryption, typically using VPN technology of some sort. For most people, this is hardly plug and play and has a performance impact.
This is not to say that wireless LANs are not a good idea, but with the typical equipment that one can buy in the store, the emphasis is on getting it going with minimal effort on the part of the user not on security.
People said that about 10Mbit ethernet when there were proprietary networks at 1Mbit around. They also said it a very few years later when 100Mbit became available.
As devices such as home controllers, video distribution over IP etc. become more prevalent over the next few years, gig-E will certainly be necessary.
All parts of this Usenet posting are Copyright by the author. It may not be sold in any medium, including electronic, CD-ROM, or database, packaged with any commercial product, or published in print or electronic form without the explicit written permission of the author. The copyright of included material belongs to the original author.
You are of course assuming that I'm going to use it as a network cable. In fact that is one of it's many *possible* uses. - I'm running it to a distribution frame so that I can use it for network traffic, telephone traffic or probably most likely audio from a cd player across the room to my amplifier next to the TV. Versitility is the key!
but they both have their equivalents, they both need securing otherwise they will both be potentially open to abuse, wired or not.
theoretcally, yes, in practice, one WAP is usually enough for most houses.
I've fitted dozens of WAPs and I've never experienced any interference. ever.
for most people, plug and play means install zone alarm and away they go. anyone intent on unpemissioned access to a network will succeed unless steps are taken to prevent them doing so but, realistically, this is a domestic LAN, the worst case scenario is a neighbour stumbling, not a '9 year old' up to nefarious activities. correct MAC/SSID/WEP configuration will prevent most unauthorised access atempts and if someone is that determined to gain access to your LAN then, wired or not, unless the owner is as network savvy as the intruder, they will succeed.
yes they are.
a different subset of vulnerabilities but still vulnerabilities. with wi-fi, network vulberabilities still need addressing in the same way as with a wired LAN, but without the aggro of pulling cables, which was was my original point to the OP.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.