Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

regarding maximum cable length for 100 mbps Ethernet

Last response: in Networking
Share
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 2:05:10 AM

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
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 10:25:34 AM

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
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 10:25:35 AM

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
Related resources
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 12:04:34 PM

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
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 1:16:07 PM

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
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 3:33:40 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 9:56:47 PM

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
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 4:25:53 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 5:12:50 AM

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
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 1:03:52 PM

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
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 6:45:10 PM

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
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 6:52:07 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 6:28:33 AM

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
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 7:55:12 AM

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
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 2:09:08 PM

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
>
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 5:45:27 PM

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....
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/
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 4:30:06 AM

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
!