Telephone via cat5

Stupid telephone networking question:
I've got a home network with cat5 cable running from a central hub to multiple outlets in each room. I want to use one of the outlets in each room for phones and therefore need some rj11 to rj45 converters. There seem to be three different types of converter available:
Secondary PABX Master
As my plan is just to wire one end of a cat5 cable into my main telephone point via the pull off portion of the BT socket, plug the other end into the nearest cat5 outlet and use the patch panel with five ports wired in parallel to connect that outlet to all the other(4) outlets that I want to put a phone on, what sort of converters do I need ?
Cheers,
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is not a wise move at all! You are making all sorts of future problems and in any case it will not meet the rules for connection to BT lines. Do the job with proper spec. CW1308 cable instead.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Crosland wrote:

I would not agree with that...
CAT5 is routinely used for voice and data. You can even run voice and ethernet over the same CAT5. Using CAT5 for everything can make for a far more flexible setup.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Rumm wrote:

Indeed. It is conventional to use different pairs for phone and ethernet.
Its fine for PABX work, and I do this here, its not strctly kosher to connect such to BT, BUT I re-installed my ISDN hookup extending the incoming line to the master socket using cat 5, and its flawless, and BT couldn't really give a damn.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Same here, BT engineer was happy to take a new line and my existing ADSL unfiltered connection striaght into CAT5 (in fact it was their old bit of CAT5 which was installed for ISDN)
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Crosland wrote:

Hmmm... better tell that to all the large offices in the land, which routinely run their phone systems and LAN wiring over the same set of premises cabling. There's a word for it somewhere... on the tip of my tongue... ah yes - "structured wiring".
Data cabling is considerably "higher spec" than phone; historically, the whole idea of Ethernet-over-twisted-pair came about in the early 80s with the dawning realisation that (a) pulling new lengths of gert thick yellow coax ready for vampire taps throughout existing buildings was expensive and awkward, and (b) there were wires running to just about all the places you wanted to put Pee Cees and similar already, being the phone points; and these wires moreover were twisted-pair, giving you some hope of noise rejection if you ran a differential signal down them... ooh, and the cabling they were bundled in might even have spare pairs!
I well remember early internal presentations from the network research mob in HP in 1985/86, showing the feasibility of the then-crazy idea of running network traffic down Plain Old Telephone wiring, at the then-fantastical data rates of 1 Mbit/s or even higher. The common twist rate then made higher rates a bit iffy - yer classic phone cable is/was sthg like "Cat 3" or "Cat 2". The shift to higher twist rates, more tightly-specced twists, different twist rates in different pairs, and all that good stuff which makes Cat5/Cat6 suitable for 100MBit and gigabit working, is all about making building wiring fit for high data rates, while keeping it pin-for-pin compatible with olde-worlde US telco style. (That backward compatability is why we have the slightly-daft-for-data business of having pins 3&6 of an RJ45 being one pair, with 4&5 within, rather than keeping all the pairs adjacent in the "logical" 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8 style, which would allow twists to be more reliably maintained close up to the connector).
In another 5-10? years, larger business premiseses will have swapped over to Voice-over-IP for nearly all telephony (but retaining some "real" PABX and direct-lines for backup usage, one hopes); home phone service will need to stay POTS-compatible for a while longer, but I expect to see telcos encouraging their customers to move to "IP dialtone" or whatever idiot marketing designation they come up with, to simplify their network admin - right now they're having to run exciting mixtures of SS7 and IP-based stuff, mostly with an ATM core (anyone remember "ATM to the desktop?" Hasn't happened, though ADSL is (in the UK) "ATM to the demarc"!).
And to return back to the original posting, the glorious good sense of the BT master socket design (the NTE5) which the OP is wiring into is to separate all the internal-extension stuff from the BT side. This separation allows BT to be rather more relaxed about "the rules for connection to BT lines" - if the punter has a problem when the NTE5 faceplate is in place, but not when the phone's plugged into the "deeper" NTE5 socket, the customer's internal extension wiring is at fault, and it's Major Shrug And Callout Fee time.
Stefek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly! The point being that it is fine if done by someone who knows in detail what is required and has the equipment to do it. My answer was directed at someone who was unlikely to have the equipment or expertise to do the job to the sort of standard that one would expect from a professional installer in an office environment. Using separate phone cable is much easier in domestic circumstances for most people.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In 5-10 years? every office I work in across the UK is VoIP already. The only ones that are behind are the small to medium size companies.
--
Quanto e quel cane nella vetrina (arf, arf)
Quello con coda scuotente
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:28:18 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

Between PABXs, or to the desks ? There are plenty of big offices where it will still be some time before VoIP is doing the in-office equivalent of the local loop.
--
Smert' spamionam

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

To the desks. All the phones are marked "IP phone."

And plenty where it's alread a done deal. The PABX usually has a router that decides if the voice traffic is going to head out to PSTN or if it can be routed to the few locations that are already on IP phones.
I also see that Draytek is doing a home VoIP/DSL router, which looks interesting.
I deal with things differently here at present. I have a problem with running copper arounf the building because of the age and the thin plaster on the walls, and the listed status. So I use copper within the office only, the rest of the place is served by DECT and 125Mb/s 802.11g.
--
Quanto e quel cane nella vetrina (arf, arf)
Quello con coda scuotente
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:37:49 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

In one sense that's a bigger market. I don't make many internal house-to-house calls. In a business that makes more internal than external calls, the argument for VoIP is less persuasive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hmm, the big argument in favour is the ease of configuring VoIP compared to PABX. Big organisations seem to have their staff permanently on the move and "hot desking" is the order of the day. With VoIP they can move desk take the phone with them and just plug it in. It also gives much more whizzy choices in terms of conferencing, broadcast and of course in keeping down the weight of installed copper in a building.
--
Quanto e quel cane nella vetrina (arf, arf)
Quello con coda scuotente
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:17:44 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

But any PABX from the post-Jurassic era lets you do just the same.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Firth wrote:

Oh my gawd.
Yes, I did a cost benefit analysis on all that crap some years back.
About 1000 a desk in a small office.
So we got a 500 quid panasonic hybrid PABX and stuffed 20 quid analogue phones on everyones desktop and told themn they wer paid to make and recieve phone calls, not foddle with uncessesary technology...
Far better productivity, no messy training needed, came out at a few grand instead of the 25k we were quoted, and ran over the structured cabling just as well..

Funny. If you use a standard PABX itdoesn;t need a router...

I'll come in and piggy back on that then. I could use a free high speed internet connection at someone elses excpense.
A firm I did some work for bemoaned the loss of productivity and expense of moving from Vt100/Unix systems to a PC on every desktop, NT server on every floor, and instead of one bloke loading software in his spare time, a 5 man MicroSnot support team costing about 1/4 mill a year to keep the whole lot functioning and repair the damage to desktops caused by idle fingers.
Or the time our oh so clever engineers went on holiday and diverted all their phones, forgot, came back, and harrased the recpetionist for misdirecting calls, and then called out the service engineers to see why the phones didn't work...
I spent today writing down a joblist in pink biro on a scrap of A4. Unlike a computer, it won't crash on me.
Technology for technologies sake is a complete and utter waste of money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're welcome to try.
--
Quanto e quel cane nella vetrina (arf, arf)
Quello con coda scuotente
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

the
If you are properly fire-walled you're the rarity. Quick walk round Buxton recently revealed open hotspots about every 50 yards.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My job is computer security. It's properly firewalled. Not only that but the aerial design is such that there's no signal to the front of the house and at the rear there's no access within a mile.
--
Quanto e quel cane nella vetrina (arf, arf)
Quello con coda scuotente
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

speed
Buxton
Oh well, one less free connection point :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even if you got into my back garden and got past the encryption at firewall 1, then you have to negotiate the need have your MAC registered with the network and the three other firewalls between you and the internet.
It's not foolproof but heck, rather than face all that you'd probably go to my neighbour who doesn't have a clue and who leaves his network open to all.
--
Quanto e quel cane nella vetrina (arf, arf)
Quello con coda scuotente
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wasn't aware that firewalls managed encryption? I guess one of the three firewalls is a "clever" one?

MAC spoofing is old hat and simple, do a google for "ethernet MAC spoofing". Nowadays, it's almost a drag/drop operation (which means any kid out of school will have a go).

Three firewalls? I would have thought one properly configured firewall would be capable and sufficient.
I suppose if someone is unsure of their skills in their profession of 'computer security' then yes, I can see why they'd do it three times to hope one of them might work. Management Nightmares 'R' Us?
I wouldn't for one moment imply that I mean you, I know you can "packet my ass of the net" whenever you want.

Admirable, atleast you are aware that a problem exists
If I were driving down a residential street (possibly in Hampshire) and noticed/found a semi secure wireless spot, it would be the first place to target. "Why are they hiding (attempting to do so) when every other house in the street is wide open?". It becomes a game. So begins the game...... unfortunately I'm not close enough to Hampshire or Blakes to ever take a wireless look.
I didn't bother looking up your old firthcom.(demon host), it looks about as old as the early MAC spoofing vulnerabilities, so instead I had a quick look at malloc in the co of the uk TLD.
Can't help but notice that - One of Lief's many vulnerabilties (bugtraq 2103) is up for exploration - The adglimpse (bugtraq 2026) vulnerability is asking to be looked at. - Early looks suggest that perl.exe is exposed where it shoudn't be.
Actually I'm not being entirely honest, there aren't three vulnerabilities waiting to be looked at, there are actually 43 (not a typo - fourty three).
In fairness, these aren't specific to your site or indicate an actual problem, but they're vulnerabilities being exposed on server2.clicknames.net, your hosting providers machine. With that many vulnerabilities I would have expected to have found MX and A entires for malloc pointing to a private machine, certainly not at any ISP. Every indication (in my quick look) says it is hosted at clicknames and not privately.
Personally, with me as a non-security professional and you as a professional, I guess you know about all of those vulnerabilities already and are confident that you're secure. There's clearly no point me telling you the full list of 43 and how they were found?
Indeed, with you as a security professional I'm guessing you'll know my home address by the morning anyway, if not, it's not that hard to find, what with the reverse lookup and only some minimally spoofed headers. By the morning you'll probably be in a position to report it to the relevant authorities. Any logs of right now will show my true IP.
You might also want to read up on Bugtraq 2021, 191834, CAN-2001-0217, CAN-2001-0231, 2109 and the other 40 odd. Oh, and also tell your hosting provider I meant no harm, I did it from my own traceable IP.
It's wierd that the unit at MX uk-mail-a.malloc(dot co dot uk) responds well and gave me it's life story, but MX uk-mail-b.malloc(dot co uk) didn't, I guess this is down to your provider or some other wierd issues? Maybe you've started packeting me off the web already, I don't know, I only took a quick look.
Back on topic for uk.diy, makes you think about your own diy wifi install doesn't it?
Regards Bill
*** Before anyone aims to hit me back, I don't claim to be a security professional, I'm just a little inquisitive. Yes, I probably carry my own vulnerabilities too. (except mine are related to drinking too much rather than computers etc).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.