Wiring a CAT5e home network

Page 1 of 3  
No doubt other problems will arise and I'll be seeking your help, but for the moment the cable is in but I don't have a guide on how to wire the CAT5e (to which pins) can anyone point me to one?
I've checked practicallynetworked and helmig and they discuss theory and the software side but I can't see the hard stuff explained to this detail. Would quite like to get this running this evening if poss. Belkin switch/router and Blueyonder connection to share (once a BitTorrent d/l has finished .... ;-) Anything to beware of generally (not done this before)? Thanks
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@in.group says...

http://www.homepcnetwork.com/makecablef.htm
Make sure all your PCs are in the same workgroup if you want to share files/printers.
--
Hywel I do not eat quiche
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hywel Jenkins wrote:

That's exactly what I wanted, thanks. Wish my IDC had a cutter like that ...

I want to connect -a ME notebook to an XP PC and -share the XP printer with the ME notebook and -give the XP PC access to the notebook's HDD but not the other way around.
But first things first, find the IDC... ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tenex wrote:

See the bottom of the page for a krone tool with cutter:
http://www.solwise.co.uk/telesun.htm
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Errrrrr - but will anyone be using cable (rather than wireless) in a few years time? Doubt it, myself - except in hostile (EM) environments... So why not go wireless now? It's cheap, easy and far more flexible!
Colin

CAT5e
the
has
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:25:32 +0100, "Colin Cooper"

It depends on what is required.
Wireless networks are certainly very useful in a number of applications, but there are limitations.
- Taking gross (rather than real) bandwidths, wireless networks are in the 10 - 50Mbit range while wired is in the 100-1000 Mbit range currently.
- The current wireless technology produces a shared network, so the bandwidth is shared among all users. A cabled network can be switched and achieve higher performance. This effect can be ameliorated somewhat by increasing the density of access points and connecting them to switches but this increases the cost of course.
- There are security issues with WiFi that may be at an acceptable level for a home user but are not for business purposes without the use of additional encryption and other security techniques.
So, yes, I think that people will be using wired networks and adding wireless for a long time to come.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
try this link www.tlc-direct/technical/networking/networking.htm
basically you wire pin to pin on all connections HTH Jeff,Leeds
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:23:54 +0100, Mindwipe wrote:

But not in "daisy chain" topography and you need to keep the pairs as pairs.
--
Cheers snipped-for-privacy@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But it's *important* to use pairs between the right pins, or the crosstalk/interference-rejection performance goes right out of the window. You need a Proper Pair for each of the two sets of outer pins (1,2 and 7,8), a Proper Pair for the innermost pair of pins (4,5), and the last Proper Pair for the remaining pins (3,6). No, it's not intuitive. Reasons are buried in the mists of old-style telecom practice on 4-pin RJ11's (equivalent to the inner 4) and badness of separating pairs too far to carry on the "next outermost pair" pattern when you get to bigget RJ45 plugs. (No BellSystem pedants about Proper Names for RJ11/RJ45, please!).
Once you accept - as you really must - this need for keeping the pairs in order, you may as well go the whole hog and stick to exactly one of the two accepted schemes: from memory, it's blue pair for 1/2, brown pair for 7/8, and then a matter of religion (-A or -B) as to whether your green pair goes 4/5 and the orange 3/6, or t'other way round. *Functionally*, provided you pair consistently, the colours you use, and which way round you do solid vs stripe, doesn't matter at all: electrons are colour-blind. But failing to stick to exactly one of the two standard wiring schemes is pretty well guaranteed to bite a future maintainer - including yourself in a few months' time - *hard* on the bum.
Stefek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30 Sep 2003 18:11:05 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@hp.com wrote:

This page shows the two T568 variants, and the point about T568-B being more common in equipment that you buy such as patch panels seems to be the case.
http://www.aptcommunications.com/ncode.htm
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30 Sep 2003 18:11:05 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@hp.com wrote:

<snip>
But the pairs are physicaly located in a different place in the cable. I suspect this could make a difference when really pushing the abilty of the cable to carry the signal without to much degredation.
<later> Checked the construction of a bit of CAT5, the pairs are arranged:
org grn blu brn
The wiring is:
T568A T568B grn 1/2 org 1/2 org 3/6 grn 3/6 blu 4/5 blu 4/5 brn 7/8 brn 7/8
As can be seen the change in the org/grn wiring is not symetrical in the cable, so a signal on the org pair is now physically closer to the brn pair, like wise more separation greater for the grn/brn.
Now ethernet (10/100Mbps, not sure about Gigabit) only uses two pairs the other two are not connected so it's probably not an issue with ethernet but could be with other uses of CAT5.
--
Cheers snipped-for-privacy@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
is the link i posted incorrect then guys?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:37:39 +0100, Mindwipe wrote:

There is a lot of information on that page, which bit are you worried about? The T568A/B colours are correct.
--
Cheers snipped-for-privacy@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Liquorice wrote:

AFAICR the center pairs are Ethernet. 4/5 and 3/6. These must be pairs, and must be wired pin to pin etc. The outers are used for telephony in structured systems.
I have used all of them to get a serial signal around - Cisco routers come with RJ45 serial consoles for example.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:19:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nope... The TLC site is broken unless you have a windoze browser, can't be arsed to find the window box.
But anyway the wiring of pairs for ethernet is on that networking information page. ISTR from last night that it's 3/6 and one of the outer ones 7/8 or 1/2 (7/8 rings the bigger bell).
--
Cheers snipped-for-privacy@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Liquorice wrote:

This is another site for all things cable, connector, wiring, and pinouts:-
http://www.hardwarebook.net /
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:00:55 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Magic, 3 year old snapped the moulded PS/2 mouse connector the other day. At least I now know the pins to use if not the cores in the cable...
--
Cheers snipped-for-privacy@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Colin Cooper wrote:

Yes. Wireless is insecure, and somewhat more expensive, and somewhat more prone to problems with metal in the walls etc.
Its also more limited on bandwidth.
If everybody used gigabit wirelss to connect up their home networks, there would be horrendous problems with adjacent properties :)
No problem tho with wire or fiber.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not necessarily.With current technology maybe that's true, but I imagine in the years ahead the wireless options will expand and the wireless devices will be hugely more configurable.
Model aircraft don't have a problem flying together, unless some divot happens to choose the same frequency as someone else.
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PoP wrote:

Don't be dumb. Bitrates on model aircfat are at best 2400 baud, and limited to about 30 channels on the band. Channels are 10Khz apart, so useable BW is les than 5Khz. You won't get 100Mbps on that.
The ONLY way to get higher BW on radio is to use ever higher frequencies - cellphonse use 900Mhz or 1.8Ghz, WiFi is 2.4Ghz, and even then, its gettng crowded.
Waveguides - be they wire, hollow pipes, or glass fibres, allow the use of the same carriers and the full broadband spectrum without interference. They will ALWAYS be able to carry more signal with less interference than an equivalent broadcast system at similar bandwidth.
You can get at least 8 GBPS down a fiber. The best of microwave technology using large aerials and big towers and highly directional links, is a few hundred Mbps at best.
Wifi as currently constituted is a shared space collison detectieon 'Ethernet' of typically 10Mbps, up to maybe 50Mbps. Any piece of cat 5 will do 100Mbps short range and no collision problems at all if a switch is used and there is no coincidence of traffic between nodes.
You only hgave to listen to e.g. a cellphone qality versus a decent analog or digital phone over landlines, to hear the difference between a clear unobstructed 64Kbps channel and a highly contended bandwidth limiteed compressed to the nth degree and frequency spread system.
Bandwidth is always tight with radio. There is never enough space to do what you want. Sometmes its a cheap way to elimninate wires or fibers, but its never ever the BEST way for a duplex system. Broadcast? yes. It works well for TV and radio, it basically sucks with bi-directional data.
It is however, a very cheap way to work if limited performance is acceptable, and the cost of laying lines is exceptionally high, which is why half of the long haul data in this country goes via microwaves. However, these are getting congested already, and fiber is the answer - it just costs a shitload of money - mostly in terms of obtaining permission - to lay it.
If you have a chance to rewire, lay in cables, or better still, fiber.
I wnxer why we still have TV downleads. Surely we should be able to do it by wireless links :-) In fact, I wonder whay we still use any cables at all. :-) :-)
Cos they work BETTER than most other things at delivering a clean signal through and unpredictable environment.

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.