regarding maximum cable length for 100 mbps Ethernet

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Hi all,

I have a Ethernet N/W(100 Mbps) ,the total distance between an
Ethernet Transmitter and Receiver at the absolute end points of the
network should be 500 meters without any repeaters.
But what i see of the cabling standards
100BASE-TX and 100 Base-T4 support a maximum distance of 100 meters.

100 Meters is not enough for my application can anybody suggest me any
alternative where in the max distance is 500 meters.

Thanks in advance


Rgds,
prav
16 answers Last reply
More about regarding maximum cable length mbps ethernet
  1. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    prav wrote:

    > I have a Ethernet N/W(100 Mbps) ,the total distance between an
    > Ethernet Transmitter and Receiver at the absolute end points of the
    > network should be 500 meters without any repeaters.
    > But what i see of the cabling standards
    > 100BASE-TX and 100 Base-T4 support a maximum distance of 100 meters.

    > 100 Meters is not enough for my application can anybody suggest me any
    > alternative where in the max distance is 500 meters.

    100baseFX should do at least 500m, maybe more.

    -- glen
  2. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<yxbzc.87000$3x.51606@attbi_s54>...
    > prav wrote:
    >
    > > I have a Ethernet N/W(100 Mbps) ,the total distance between an
    > > Ethernet Transmitter and Receiver at the absolute end points of the
    > > network should be 500 meters without any repeaters.
    > > But what i see of the cabling standards
    > > 100BASE-TX and 100 Base-T4 support a maximum distance of 100 meters.
    >
    > > 100 Meters is not enough for my application can anybody suggest me any
    > > alternative where in the max distance is 500 meters.
    >
    > 100baseFX should do at least 500m, maybe more.

    Hi,

    According to IEEE 802.3 the max segment length for 100baseFX link is
    400m for half duplex .
    See clause 24.1.2 of IEEE 802.3 2000 edition

    Rgds,
    prav
    >
    > -- glen
  3. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    "prav" <praveenkn123@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:863df22b.0406132105.71dfd5f@posting.google.com...
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I have a Ethernet N/W(100 Mbps) ,the total distance between an
    > Ethernet Transmitter and Receiver at the absolute end points of the
    > network should be 500 meters without any repeaters.
    > But what i see of the cabling standards
    > 100BASE-TX and 100 Base-T4 support a maximum distance of 100 meters.
    >
    > 100 Meters is not enough for my application can anybody suggest me any
    > alternative where in the max distance is 500 meters.

    you are mixing up how far a segment can go (which depends on the kind of
    segment) and how far an ethernet collision domain can go (which is limited
    by propagation delay, the minimum length packet and the data rate).

    if you have 10 Base-F only, and no repeaters, then you can go 4 Km.

    if you run at 100Mbps then you will need switch(es), and / or you have to
    use full duplex, so there arent any collisions, since the limit at 100M is
    less than 500m.
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    >
    >
    > Rgds,
    > prav
    --
    Regards

    Stephen Hope - return address needs fewer xxs
  4. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <863df22b.0406140419.2b623d4b@posting.google.com>,
    praveenkn123@yahoo.com (prav) wrote:

    >
    > According to IEEE 802.3 the max segment length for 100baseFX link is
    > 400m for half duplex .
    >
    >

    Correct. Therefore, use the link in *full-duplex* mode, which easily
    meets your length objective.


    --
    Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting
    21885 Bear Creek Way
    (408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033
    (408) 395-1966 FAX

    Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com
  5. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

    >> 100 Meters is not enough for my application can anybody suggest me any
    >> alternative where in the max distance is 500 meters.
    >
    > 100baseFX should do at least 500m, maybe more.

    2 km, according to the spec. So that should work fine for him.

    Regards,

    Marco.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    "prav" <praveenkn123@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:863df22b.0406132105.71dfd5f@posting.google.com...
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I have a Ethernet N/W(100 Mbps) ,the total distance between an
    > Ethernet Transmitter and Receiver at the absolute end points of the
    > network should be 500 meters without any repeaters.
    > But what i see of the cabling standards
    > 100BASE-TX and 100 Base-T4 support a maximum distance of 100 meters.
    >
    > 100 Meters is not enough for my application can anybody suggest me any
    > alternative where in the max distance is 500 meters.
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    >
    >
    > Rgds,
    > prav

    You considered 10base5 ? :o)

    BL
    --
    As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in
    a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got
    to laugh, haven't you? - Holly
  7. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Hi,
    I want it on a copper link not fiber link.
    Rgds,
    prav

    Rich Seifert <usenet-@-richseifert-dot-com.invalid> wrote in message news:<usenet--741012.09160714062004@news-central.dca.giganews.com>...
    > In article <863df22b.0406140419.2b623d4b@posting.google.com>,
    > praveenkn123@yahoo.com (prav) wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > According to IEEE 802.3 the max segment length for 100baseFX link is
    > > 400m for half duplex .
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Correct. Therefore, use the link in *full-duplex* mode, which easily
    > meets your length objective.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Buzz Lightbeer wrote:

    > "prav" <praveenkn123@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:863df22b.0406132105.71dfd5f@posting.google.com...

    >>I have a Ethernet N/W(100 Mbps) ,the total distance between an
    >>Ethernet Transmitter and Receiver at the absolute end points of the
    >>network should be 500 meters without any repeaters.

    (snip)

    > You considered 10base5 ? :o)

    The OP asked for 100Mbps.

    -- glen
  9. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    praveenkn123@yahoo.com (prav) wrote:
    > I want it on a copper link not fiber link.

    You can't get 500M 100BaseT Ethernet over copper. It's either got to
    be some DSL conversion, fiber, wireless, or something else.

    --
    William Smith
    ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com
  10. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    prav <praveenkn123@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > I want it on a copper link not fiber link.

    500m sounds like between different buildings (ground stakes).
    You'd best go fiber for the lightening protection. Otherwise,
    look for 10base5 coax.

    If you still insist on 100 Mbit/s, you'll have to look to
    proprietary vendors (BlackBox?). AFAIK, there is no copper
    standard that does 100 Mbit/s over 500m.

    Do not expect to run 100baseTX over 500m. I've never heard of
    anyone running it that far (100m spec, ~170m max reported working).
    Running any copper data between buildings is asking for trouble.
    If you're lucky, only burnt out ports and cards.

    -- Robert
  11. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    On 2004-06-15, glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
    [snipfest]
    >> You considered 10base5 ? :o)
    >
    > The OP asked for 100Mbps.

    Well, uhm, 100base5, then? ;-)

    But seriously, between stretching the time-space continuum (so you can
    get away with 10 metres of cat5 to do 100BaseTX on) and going fibre, I
    think OP is out of options. Or maybe he could invent 100baseT4-stretch
    that'll go up to 1000M on cat7, or something like that.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    You can always attach empty cans and shout in them.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    William P.N. Smith wrote in message news:<m7stc0pcku4mv7ugmkl3kr1noi1njkv6jv@4ax.com>...
    > praveenkn123@yahoo.com (prav) wrote:
    > > I want it on a copper link not fiber link.
    >
    > You can't get 500M 100BaseT Ethernet over copper. It's either got to
    > be some DSL conversion, fiber, wireless, or something else.

    Hi smith,

    What is DSL conversion???

    Rgds,
    prav
  13. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    jpd wrote:
    (snip)

    > But seriously, between stretching the time-space continuum (so you can
    > get away with 10 metres of cat5 to do 100BaseTX on) and going fibre, I
    > think OP is out of options. Or maybe he could invent 100baseT4-stretch
    > that'll go up to 1000M on cat7, or something like that.

    Somewhere on ieee.org I saw something about a 100Mb/s system
    using the same signaling as 1000baseT. It has reduces RFI
    emission, and also longer distance range, though I don't remember
    that it would reach 500m.

    I asked about it here, and it seemed that even Rich Seifert
    didn't know about it, so I wouldn't expect it to be available
    anytime soon. It does seem an interesting idea, though.

    There have been suggestions along the line of running
    802.11g through coax, with the proper attenuators if needed.
    I don't know that anyone has tried it.

    With the right transformers it might be possible to run
    100baseTX through two coaxial cables. One might even arrange
    the proper isolation for ground differences. (Ground the
    shield at one end, run the other end into a thick walled
    plastic box, through repeaters with a well isolated power
    supply, and then out to normal termination. Best would be to
    run fiber through that short link. I could imagine it, I doubt
    anyone would ever build it.

    Fiber is really the best solution. The cable doesn't cost
    much more, the connectors do, but averaged over the length of
    the cable it isn't that much more.

    -- glen
  14. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Anong these lines, AMP claims that 100BT will run 200M over Type 1 cabling
    (150ohm STP used for Token Ring networks) using their baluns. Years ago, at
    the Kennedy Space Center, NASA was running a T1 signal several 10s of
    thousands of feet on some exotic cable using one of our data sets designed
    for 6000 feet but rarely drove 4000 feet on 'normal' circuits. The point is
    that the quality of the cable very much impacts the performance. Find a
    cable that meets the minimum requirements at the length you're after, and
    away you go. Having said that, it seems to me that searching for copper
    cable to run an ethernet signal 500M might be difficult, even if you have a
    good understanding of the electrical parameters associated with cabling and
    ethernet. Fibre is good. Another alternative might be the Long Range
    Ethernet technology that Cisco bought. Too bad they don't have a pair of
    standalone ethernet 'data sets' using LRE, instead you have to buy a
    multi-port LRE switch for one end, and the standlone box for the other. It
    does have quite impressive speed/distance performance.

    Dave


    "glen herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
    news:AwPzc.38309$2i5.25941@attbi_s52...
    > jpd wrote:
    > (snip)
    >
    > > But seriously, between stretching the time-space continuum (so you can
    > > get away with 10 metres of cat5 to do 100BaseTX on) and going fibre, I
    > > think OP is out of options. Or maybe he could invent 100baseT4-stretch
    > > that'll go up to 1000M on cat7, or something like that.
    >
    > Somewhere on ieee.org I saw something about a 100Mb/s system
    > using the same signaling as 1000baseT. It has reduces RFI
    > emission, and also longer distance range, though I don't remember
    > that it would reach 500m.
    >
    > I asked about it here, and it seemed that even Rich Seifert
    > didn't know about it, so I wouldn't expect it to be available
    > anytime soon. It does seem an interesting idea, though.
    >
    > There have been suggestions along the line of running
    > 802.11g through coax, with the proper attenuators if needed.
    > I don't know that anyone has tried it.
    >
    > With the right transformers it might be possible to run
    > 100baseTX through two coaxial cables. One might even arrange
    > the proper isolation for ground differences. (Ground the
    > shield at one end, run the other end into a thick walled
    > plastic box, through repeaters with a well isolated power
    > supply, and then out to normal termination. Best would be to
    > run fiber through that short link. I could imagine it, I doubt
    > anyone would ever build it.
    >
    > Fiber is really the best solution. The cable doesn't cost
    > much more, the connectors do, but averaged over the length of
    > the cable it isn't that much more.
    >
    > -- glen
    >
  15. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    praveenkn123@yahoo.com (prav) wrote in
    news:863df22b.0406160128.79b147cb@posting.google.com:

    > What is DSL conversion???

    Basically using DSL technology (VDSL/SDSL/etc) to transmit data over your
    local network. This is similar to the technology used by ISPs to provide
    broadband to consumers - however you're running it over your own lines (so
    they're usually no monthly fee). However, with DSL you're limited to about
    5 - 8 mbits.

    http://catalog.blackbox.com/BlackBox/templates/blackbox/itemgroup3398guest.
    asp?param=385&ig_id=3398&title=2%2DWire+iDSL+Line+Drivers&related=

    --
    Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
  16. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    "Lucas Tam" <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns950A6361711C4nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
    > praveenkn123@yahoo.com (prav) wrote in
    > news:863df22b.0406160128.79b147cb@posting.google.com:
    >
    > > What is DSL conversion???
    >
    > Basically using DSL technology (VDSL/SDSL/etc) to transmit data over your
    > local network. This is similar to the technology used by ISPs to provide
    > broadband to consumers - however you're running it over your own lines (so
    > they're usually no monthly fee). However, with DSL you're limited to about
    > 5 - 8 mbits.

    Cisco call this approach Long Reach Ethernet. Speed is cable length
    dependant, typically <15Mbps, but as it's designed to run over cat3 you
    might get an improvement on this using cat5 or better.

    If you are looking for inter-building connetivity and don't want to go down
    the fibre route then some line of sight device (laser based), may be an
    option.

    BL
    --
    "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other
    bastard die for his." - General George S. Patton
Ask a new question

Read More

Support Ethernet Card Cable Networking