Wireless Router/Cable Modem Interface Question

[Don]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

I just subscribed to cable broadband, and have a question regarding the
interface of the cable modem (in this case, a Motorola Surfboard SB-
5100) to a wireless router (a Motorola WR850G).

I would prefer to place the cable modem near the cable ingress point,
but locate the wireless router approximately 25 to 30 feet from the
cable ingress point and cable modem. Is it OK to run a 25 to 30 foot
run of CAT5 cable from the modem to the wireless router's WAN RG-45
input port? Or, must I have the modem and router in close proximity,
using the CAT5 cable included with the router (approx. a 3 foot length)?
If the latter is the case, I will have to add approx. 25 to 30 feet of
RG-6 coax cable for the input to the cable modem. This will add a bit
more signal degradation and return loss of course, but I would only
think a minimal increase.

Which is the preferred approach?

Tnx for consideration of this basic question.

Don

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Don wrote:

>I just subscribed to cable broadband, and have a question regarding the
>interface of the cable modem (in this case, a Motorola Surfboard SB-
>5100) to a wireless router (a Motorola WR850G).
>
>I would prefer to place the cable modem near the cable ingress point,
>but locate the wireless router approximately 25 to 30 feet from the
>cable ingress point and cable modem. Is it OK to run a 25 to 30 foot
>run of CAT5 cable from the modem to the wireless router's WAN RG-45
>input port? Or, must I have the modem and router in close proximity,
>using the CAT5 cable included with the router (approx. a 3 foot length)?
>If the latter is the case, I will have to add approx. 25 to 30 feet of
>RG-6 coax cable for the input to the cable modem. This will add a bit
>more signal degradation and return loss of course, but I would only
>think a minimal increase.
>
>Which is the preferred approach?
>
>Tnx for consideration of this basic question.
>
>Don
>
>
There is a limit to a run of CAT5 cable (200,300 meters? I forget), but
it is certainly OK to run the length you propose.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

The maximum length (maximum certifiable length) for CAT 5 patch or crossover
cables is 328 feet (100 meters). Beyond that, you risk signal loss and
other complications. You will have no problem at 25-30'.

 

[dennis]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

an additional 30ft of coax cable is not much to wary about.

"Don" <w9cw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bc79ed19daaec3a989684@netnews.insightbb.com...
>I just subscribed to cable broadband, and have a question regarding the
> interface of the cable modem (in this case, a Motorola Surfboard SB-
> 5100) to a wireless router (a Motorola WR850G).
>
> I would prefer to place the cable modem near the cable ingress point,
> but locate the wireless router approximately 25 to 30 feet from the
> cable ingress point and cable modem. Is it OK to run a 25 to 30 foot
> run of CAT5 cable from the modem to the wireless router's WAN RG-45
> input port? Or, must I have the modem and router in close proximity,
> using the CAT5 cable included with the router (approx. a 3 foot length)?
> If the latter is the case, I will have to add approx. 25 to 30 feet of
> RG-6 coax cable for the input to the cable modem. This will add a bit
> more signal degradation and return loss of course, but I would only
> think a minimal increase.
>
> Which is the preferred approach?
>
> Tnx for consideration of this basic question.
>
> Don

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

I don't think he is talking about coax.

--
Bob Alston

bobalston9 AT aol DOT com
"Dennis" <sava7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8uSdnfOKX6TyvcPcRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> an additional 30ft of coax cable is not much to wary about.
>
> "Don" <w9cw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bc79ed19daaec3a989684@netnews.insightbb.com...
>>I just subscribed to cable broadband, and have a question regarding the
>> interface of the cable modem (in this case, a Motorola Surfboard SB-
>> 5100) to a wireless router (a Motorola WR850G).
>>
>> I would prefer to place the cable modem near the cable ingress point,
>> but locate the wireless router approximately 25 to 30 feet from the
>> cable ingress point and cable modem. Is it OK to run a 25 to 30 foot
>> run of CAT5 cable from the modem to the wireless router's WAN RG-45
>> input port? Or, must I have the modem and router in close proximity,
>> using the CAT5 cable included with the router (approx. a 3 foot length)?
>> If the latter is the case, I will have to add approx. 25 to 30 feet of
>> RG-6 coax cable for the input to the cable modem. This will add a bit
>> more signal degradation and return loss of course, but I would only
>> think a minimal increase.
>>
>> Which is the preferred approach?
>>
>> Tnx for consideration of this basic question.
>>
>> Don
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/2004

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

"Don" <w9cw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bc79ed19daaec3a989684@netnews.insightbb.com...
>I just subscribed to cable broadband, and have a question regarding the
> interface of the cable modem (in this case, a Motorola Surfboard SB-
> 5100) to a wireless router (a Motorola WR850G).
>
> I would prefer to place the cable modem near the cable ingress point,
> but locate the wireless router approximately 25 to 30 feet from the
> cable ingress point and cable modem. Is it OK to run a 25 to 30 foot
> run of CAT5 cable from the modem to the wireless router's WAN RG-45
> input port? Or, must I have the modem and router in close proximity,
> using the CAT5 cable included with the router (approx. a 3 foot length)?
> If the latter is the case, I will have to add approx. 25 to 30 feet of
> RG-6 coax cable for the input to the cable modem. This will add a bit
> more signal degradation and return loss of course, but I would only
> think a minimal increase.
>
> Which is the preferred approach?
>
> Tnx for consideration of this basic question.
>
> Don

You're thinking correctly. Longer runs of coaxial cable may impair your
signal, but the Cat5 cable is good for almost 100 meters. The specification
allows for 100 meters, but 90 meters of that is supposed to be
solid-conductor horizontal cable, and only 10 meters is allowed to be
stranded-conductor patch cable. Using all patch cable will probably reduce
the distance limit a bit, but 30 feet (less than 10 meters) is no problem.

Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.