Extending cable range

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

John Carlyle-Clarke <john.cc@nospam.europlacer.co.uk> wrote:
> Dees anyone know if there's any reason why I can't use a hub
> or switch (hard to buy hubs nowadays!) to extend the reach of
> a single ethernet cat5e cable run? I need to go to about 150m
> to reach one outlying machine.

You can always use a switch. Hubs may be problematic on an
unswitched 100baseTX system because of the collision domain/size
requirements. BUt even then, it most likely will work.

The real issue is that many people who want to go long really
are going to separate buildings. This brings problems of it's
own, even inside 100m. The biggest is lightening protection.
Interbuilding runs are a potential ground path, and can get charged
during any nearby strike. You _will_ lose equipment at both ends.

The proper solution is fiber.

-- Robert

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

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:jeDRe.76$6e1.47@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> John Carlyle-Clarke <john.cc@nospam.europlacer.co.uk> wrote:
> > Dees anyone know if there's any reason why I can't use a hub
> > or switch (hard to buy hubs nowadays!) to extend the reach of
> > a single ethernet cat5e cable run? I need to go to about 150m
> > to reach one outlying machine.
>
> You can always use a switch. Hubs may be problematic on an
> unswitched 100baseTX system because of the collision domain/size
> requirements. BUt even then, it most likely will work.
>
> The real issue is that many people who want to go long really
> are going to separate buildings. This brings problems of it's
> own, even inside 100m. The biggest is lightening protection.
> Interbuilding runs are a potential ground path, and can get charged
> during any nearby strike. You _will_ lose equipment at both ends.
>
> The proper solution is fiber.
>
> -- Robert
>

No doubt that fiber is a better solution. However, that is often cost
prohibitive. The hub/switch solution works, but becomes another point of
failure. Wireless or Powerline options could be good options as well.

However, if you are looking at using existing cable, you could check into
LRE (Long Range Ethernet) products. The lightning concerns are valid.
However, you can always add lightning protection to help keep the equipment
from getting fried.

Hope that helps,

Jim

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

In article <Xns96C465DC8A6ABjohncceuroplacercouk@192.168.1.69>,
John Carlyle-Clarke <john.cc@nospam.europlacer.co.uk> wrote:
 ees anyone know if there's any reason why I can't use a hub or switch
 hard to buy hubs nowadays!) to extend the reach of a single ethernet
:cat5e cable run? I need to go to about 150m to reach one outlying
:machine.

Others have mentioned Cisco's LRE (which is expensive in absolute terms,
but possibly cheaper than the reliable alternatives.)

Several months back, someone reported here that they had been able to
successfully use runs up to something like 200m [I do not recall the
exact distance.]

If I understand correctly, if you were to work at 10BaseT instead of
100BaseT then the practical distances are a bit longer -- with
the bit being on the wire for so much longer, high-frequency
electrical noise has less effect.


:I imagined that you would be able to buy something designed
:specifically for this job... a little range extender/repeater (i.e. 2
 ort hub) that you could fit inline, possibly even powered by a power
 ver ethernet module. However, I can't find such a thing. Anyone
:know of one?

I see a few that run over 2-wire (including voice grade); some
of them have direct RJ45 inputs for the LAN portion. If you were to
wire appropriate connectors to the ends of the cat5e run, you could
plug those into the output of the extenders; the extra wires would
simply be irrelevant to the link. Or you could wire several of the
devices over the same cat5e run, using different pairs ;-)
--
"I want to make sure [a user] can't get through ... an online
experience without hitting a Microsoft ad"
-- Steve Ballmer [Microsoft Chief Executive]

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

John Carlyle-Clarke wrote:

> Dees anyone know if there's any reason why I can't use a hub or switch
> (hard to buy hubs nowadays!) to extend the reach of a single ethernet
> cat5e cable run? I need to go to about 150m to reach one outlying
> machine.
>
> I imagined that you would be able to buy something designed
> specifically for this job... a little range extender/repeater (i.e. 2
> port hub) that you could fit inline, possibly even powered by a power
> over ethernet module. However, I can't find such a thing. Anyone
> know of one?

Actually, there are (were?) devices called repeaters. However, any hub or
switch can do the job. If you're running full duplex, you'll need a
switch.

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

"Scooby" <mmscooby1@removeme.earthlink.net> wrote in
news bba6$4317351f$a22770bd$29501@ALLTEL.NET:

> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:jeDRe.76$6e1.47@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

>> John Carlyle-Clarke <john.cc@nospam.europlacer.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Dees anyone know if there's any reason why I can't use a hub
>> > or switch (hard to buy hubs nowadays!) to extend the reach of
>> > a single ethernet cat5e cable run? I need to go to about 150m
>> > to reach one outlying machine.
>>
>> The real issue is that many people who want to go long really
>> are going to separate buildings. This brings problems of it's
>> own, even inside 100m. The biggest is lightening protection.
>> Interbuilding runs are a potential ground path, and can get
>> charged during any nearby strike. You _will_ lose equipment at
>> both ends.
>>
>> The proper solution is fiber.
>
> No doubt that fiber is a better solution. However, that is often
> cost prohibitive. The hub/switch solution works, but becomes
> another point of failure. Wireless or Powerline options could be
> good options as well.

Thanks to all for the responses. This strand is particularly
interesting.

In this case, the run is within a single large building. Wireless is
no good - too many thick walls, and no easy way to mount elevated
antennae. Powerline is an interesting suggestion, but don't they need
to be on the same ring main?

But it sounds like a switch will do the job well in this case.

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

"John Carlyle-Clarke" <john.cc@nospam.europlacer.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns96C566E38BCF7johncceuroplacercouk@192.168.1.69...
> "Scooby" <mmscooby1@removeme.earthlink.net> wrote in
> news bba6$4317351f$a22770bd$29501@ALLTEL.NET:
>
> > "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:jeDRe.76$6e1.47@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >> John Carlyle-Clarke <john.cc@nospam.europlacer.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > Dees anyone know if there's any reason why I can't use a hub
> >> > or switch (hard to buy hubs nowadays!) to extend the reach of
> >> > a single ethernet cat5e cable run? I need to go to about 150m
> >> > to reach one outlying machine.
> >>
> >> The real issue is that many people who want to go long really
> >> are going to separate buildings. This brings problems of it's
> >> own, even inside 100m. The biggest is lightening protection.
> >> Interbuilding runs are a potential ground path, and can get
> >> charged during any nearby strike. You _will_ lose equipment at
> >> both ends.
> >>
> >> The proper solution is fiber.
> >
> > No doubt that fiber is a better solution. However, that is often
> > cost prohibitive. The hub/switch solution works, but becomes
> > another point of failure. Wireless or Powerline options could be
> > good options as well.
>
> Thanks to all for the responses. This strand is particularly
> interesting.
>
> In this case, the run is within a single large building. Wireless is
> no good - too many thick walls, and no easy way to mount elevated
> antennae. Powerline is an interesting suggestion, but don't they need
> to be on the same ring main?
>
> But it sounds like a switch will do the job well in this case.
>

John,

Depending on what you mean by 'the same ring', that may or may not be true.
If you just mean a single panel off the electric panel, the answer is no.
Now, this actually gets beyond my understanding of electrical wiring, but
I'll tell you what I understand. If you have a two phase panel (like most
homes), then it should work with all circuits. If you have 3 or more
phases, or separate panels altogether, then it may fail, depending on what
you plug in where. However, they do make couplers to bridge the gap (so to
speak). That is what the Power companies use to link the different segments
of the transformers so that they can offer BPL (Broadband over power).

As for the switch in the middle. I still like the idea of LRE better, but
only you really know what your situation is. If you have a good place to
put the switch where you (and anyone who comes after you) knows where it is,
it has good power (and power backup), good environmental conditions, etc...
Then, the switch in the middle could be a good solution. However, for
example, if this is going to be sitting on a beam 30 feet up in a
manufacturing warehouse, I would highly suggest not using it.

Jim

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

Scooby wrote:

> "John Carlyle-Clarke" <john.cc@nospam.europlacer.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns96C566E38BCF7johncceuroplacercouk@192.168.1.69...
> > "Scooby" <mmscooby1@removeme.earthlink.net> wrote in
> > news bba6$4317351f$a22770bd$29501@ALLTEL.NET:
> >
> > > "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:jeDRe.76$6e1.47@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > >> John Carlyle-Clarke <john.cc@nospam.europlacer.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> > Dees anyone know if there's any reason why I can't use a hub
> > >> > or switch (hard to buy hubs nowadays!) to extend the reach of
> > >> > a single ethernet cat5e cable run? I need to go to about 150m
> > >> > to reach one outlying machine.
> > >>
> > >> The real issue is that many people who want to go long really
> > >> are going to separate buildings. This brings problems of it's
> > >> own, even inside 100m. The biggest is lightening protection.
> > >> Interbuilding runs are a potential ground path, and can get
> > >> charged during any nearby strike. You _will_ lose equipment at
> > >> both ends.
> > >>
> > >> The proper solution is fiber.
> > >
> > > No doubt that fiber is a better solution. However, that is often
> > > cost prohibitive. The hub/switch solution works, but becomes
> > > another point of failure. Wireless or Powerline options could be
> > > good options as well.
> >
> > Thanks to all for the responses. This strand is particularly
> > interesting.
> >
> > In this case, the run is within a single large building. Wireless is
> > no good - too many thick walls, and no easy way to mount elevated
> > antennae. Powerline is an interesting suggestion, but don't they need
> > to be on the same ring main?
> >
> > But it sounds like a switch will do the job well in this case.
> >
>
> John,
>
> Depending on what you mean by 'the same ring', that may or may not be true.
> If you just mean a single panel off the electric panel, the answer is no.

The UK uses different wiring practices than the US for power. US has
branch circuits that have cable going from power panel to outlet or whatever,
then on to the next outlet, etc., then it stops at the last outlet. UK
practice
is that a ring main goes from the panel, out to the outlet, then the next and so

on, then back to the same panel. If you run the math, this allows you to
use less copper for the same amount of power delivered to outlets.


--Dale

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

John Carlyle-Clarke <john.cc@nospam.europlacer.co.uk> wrote:
> In this case, the run is within a single large building.

Then you shouldn'at have much trouble with a small switch.

> Wireless is no good - too many thick walls, and no easy way
> to mount elevated antennae.

OK. Fllors can also function as very thick walls when the
signal path is penpendicular to the joists. Easier parallel.

> Powerline is an interesting suggestion, but don't they need
> to be on the same ring main?

Ring mains? Oh, you're in the UK, where even the electrons drive
funny   I'm not sure powerline works on ringmains because of
the dual signal path potentially interfering. I would look for a
specific solution that works for rings. US practice is individual
branches from the service entrance, and I believe that can even
go interbuilding,e but is stopped by distribution transformers.

-- Robert

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

> Dees anyone know if there's any reason why I can't use a hub or switch
> (hard to buy hubs nowadays!) to extend the reach of a single ethernet
> cat5e cable run? I need to go to about 150m to reach one outlying
> machine.
>
> I imagined that you would be able to buy something designed
> specifically for this job... a little range extender/repeater (i.e. 2
> port hub) that you could fit inline, possibly even powered by a power
> over ethernet module. However, I can't find such a thing. Anyone
> know of one?

Loads of good, but perhaps over complex, advice already.

YES. You can use a switch or hub. (hub = repeater)

Here is the first one I came across.
D-LINK DGS 1005D - 10/100/1000 Mbps - Ethernet Switch - 5 ports
£ 29,74 VAT ex. 43,80 €
Auto MDI/MDI-X crossover on all ports eliminate the need for crossover
cables

This will ALMOST CERTAINLY just work.
Google for cheaper ones if you like.

Otherwise:-

The only things you will have to worry about are
1.
If you use a hub you will have to configure your two devices
for Half Duplex (or Auto).

2.
You may need crossover cables or MDI-X ports.

The rules are
[End device] --to--[Concentrator device] Use standard cable
[End device] --to-- [End device] Use crossover cable
[Concentrator device] --to--[Concentrator device] Use crossover cable

End device = PC, Server, printer, router(usually)
Concentrator device = Hub, Switch.

Get a 10/100 4 port switch would be my advice.