Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)
J. Clarke <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 1000T is designed to run on CAT5, but 5E was designed around
> the standard.
Fully agreed. I think the difference that gets the -E is
an ACR and alienXT spec. Almost all Cat5 installs meet 5e.
> It's actually been run on barbed wire in a demonstration
> (don't try this at home), so it's a lot more robust than
> is generally realized.
??? I'd heard of 10baseT running over barbed wire, but
not 100baseTX or 1000baseT. The barbs will act like chokes
> That said, if you have a vendor charging 40% more for
> CAT5E than for CAT5 patch cables they're gouging--
Or inventory clearance. I can't see there being much
difference between Cat5 & -5e patchcords. Yes, the cable
will be 5e rated. Alien XT is irrelevant for patch, and the
attenuation difference can't be significant.
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)
Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 1000T is designed to run on CAT5, but 5E was designed around
>> the standard.
>
> Fully agreed. I think the difference that gets the -E is
> an ACR and alienXT spec. Almost all Cat5 installs meet 5e.
>
>> It's actually been run on barbed wire in a demonstration
>> (don't try this at home), so it's a lot more robust than
>> is generally realized.
>
> ??? I'd heard of 10baseT running over barbed wire, but
> not 100baseTX or 1000baseT. The barbs will act like chokes
>> That said, if you have a vendor charging 40% more for
>> CAT5E than for CAT5 patch cables they're gouging--
>
> Or inventory clearance. I can't see there being much
> difference between Cat5 & -5e patchcords. Yes, the cable
> will be 5e rated. Alien XT is irrelevant for patch, and the
> attenuation difference can't be significant.
>
> -- Robert
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)
William P.N. Smith@nirgendwo wrote:
> Cat5E patch cables are almost 40% more than Cat5 at the particular
> vendor I'm looking at, does 1000BaseT require Cat5e or is Cat5 good
> enough?
> Thanks!
CAT5E spec was developed specifically to support 1000BASE-T, so I would
not attempt to save 40% by rendering your cabling system useless or
slow-moving.
Actually, CAT5 vs. CAT5E is not even the point here. CAT5E was ratified as
a standard back in 1999. Now, in 2004, there is no practical reason for a
decent manufacturer to continue to make old CAT5 stuff that was removed
from the standard. Therefore anyone still using the CAT5 designation
(without "E" ) is just trying to mask the fact that this is either an old
stock or just a poor quality part that did not make it through the CAT5E
test. While there might be nothing wrong with an old stock CAT5 part from
a decent manufacturer (in fact, it may very well pass CAT5E test), I would
stay far away from any recent part that is still marked "CAT5" (without
"E" ).
##-----------------------------------------------##
Article posted with Cabling-Design.com Newsgroup Archive
http://www.cabling-design.com/forums no-spam read and post WWW interface to your favorite newsgroup -
comp.dcom.lans.ethernet - 923 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.