CAT6 End to End?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@NattNatt said:
Company now uses all Cat6 - but I miss Cat 5e, was easier to run and terminate, easier to bend etc too...
You won't miss 5e in a couple years when 10gig switching is dirt cheap
That will be a few years yet, and I don't see adoption being that rapid. Few people have a means of using that even today.
With the prevalence of cloud computing it may just never see the demand that gig got. I think that'll be the primary hiccup in it's adoption. That and quality WIFI anyway.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@NattNatt said:
Company now uses all Cat6 - but I miss Cat 5e, was easier to run and terminate, easier to bend etc too...
You won't miss 5e in a couple years when 10gig switching is dirt cheap
That will be a few years yet, and I don't see adoption being that rapid. Few people have a means of using that even today.
With the prevalence of cloud computing it may just never see the demand that gig got. I think that'll be the primary hiccup in it's adoption. That and quality WIFI anyway.
In the datacenter I definitely see 10 GbE taking over... but at the end point - no way except for rare specialty conditions - like the video processing station.
-
And here five years ago Cisco said that if we didn't have 14Tb/s to the desktop that YouTube would be dead.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And here five years ago Cisco said that if we didn't have 14Tb/s to the desktop that YouTube would be dead.
LOL - did you say 14 TB to the desktop?
What did they expect the internet to be Pb connection to the internet?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
And here five years ago Cisco said that if we didn't have 14Tb/s to the desktop that YouTube would be dead.
LOL - did you say 14 TB to the desktop?
What did they expect the internet to be Pb connection to the internet?
Yup, that's actually what Cisco's engineer at a SpiceCorps even told us. Told us we were all fools and backwards for still having GigE connections. He explained that Cisco's technology was so advanced that in no time, like later that year, video services would required so much bandwidth that if we didn't have 14Tb/s to the desktop that things wouldn't work for us any more.
That was the nail in the coffin for my respect for Cisco. This was a Cisco internal engineer with less networking knowledge than I would expect from a typical middles schooler. What they think of the intelligence of their end users was apparent and there is no way that I would ever let myself be counted in that group after that.
It was offensive to the audience and embarrassing for Cisco. He went on and on about how awesome Cisco was having such technology (they still don't have anything like that half a decade later) and how silly we were for not already using it.
-
What is even "worse", if anything can be, is that the Cisco Platinum Partner host that was hosting the event decided to play along and not call their bluff and hope that the audience, which was all IT people, wouldn't notice!! That or they actually weren't aware of what a realistic lie about networking would sound like.
-
I use Cat6 here and the cable is a little thicker and the individual strands for the cable I get are 23 AWG so they are a little more work to crimp the RJ45 ends on because they don't straighten as easily as 24 AWG. Patching is just as easy as Cat5E.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
What is even "worse", if anything can be, is that the Cisco Platinum Partner host that was hosting the event decided to play along and not call their bluff and hope that the audience, which was all IT people, wouldn't notice!! That or they actually weren't aware of what a realistic lie about networking would sound like.
I don't even want to imagine how much the Cisco router would be that could handle 14Tb/s ...
-
@brianlittlejohn said:
@scottalanmiller said:
What is even "worse", if anything can be, is that the Cisco Platinum Partner host that was hosting the event decided to play along and not call their bluff and hope that the audience, which was all IT people, wouldn't notice!! That or they actually weren't aware of what a realistic lie about networking would sound like.
I don't even want to imagine how much the Cisco router would be that could handle 14Tb/s ...
Hard to imagine Cisco ever being able to handle that. Ubiquiti will be doing 1Pb/s before Cisco figures TB/s out!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@brianlittlejohn said:
@scottalanmiller said:
What is even "worse", if anything can be, is that the Cisco Platinum Partner host that was hosting the event decided to play along and not call their bluff and hope that the audience, which was all IT people, wouldn't notice!! That or they actually weren't aware of what a realistic lie about networking would sound like.
I don't even want to imagine how much the Cisco router would be that could handle 14Tb/s ...
Hard to imagine Cisco ever being able to handle that. Ubiquiti will be doing 1Pb/s before Cisco figures TB/s out!
Ubiquiti gets all the street cred (and probably all the single ladies too).
-
We do all CAT6A here. Cable is fairly cheap.. It's the install that costs us.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@NattNatt said:
Company now uses all Cat6 - but I miss Cat 5e, was easier to run and terminate, easier to bend etc too...
You won't miss 5e in a couple years when 10gig switching is dirt cheap
No doubt...but we'll no doubt have re-run ALL the cables at least 3 times before then...
-
@NattNatt said:
@MattSpeller said:
@NattNatt said:
Company now uses all Cat6 - but I miss Cat 5e, was easier to run and terminate, easier to bend etc too...
You won't miss 5e in a couple years when 10gig switching is dirt cheap
No doubt...but we'll no doubt have re-run ALL the cables at least 3 times before then...
Hahaha I was going to say "or you'll have moved by then"
-
@MattSpeller said:
@NattNatt said:
@MattSpeller said:
@NattNatt said:
Company now uses all Cat6 - but I miss Cat 5e, was easier to run and terminate, easier to bend etc too...
You won't miss 5e in a couple years when 10gig switching is dirt cheap
No doubt...but we'll no doubt have re-run ALL the cables at least 3 times before then...
Hahaha I was going to say "or you'll have moved by then"
Apparently the boss is trying to procure the building that's opposite us, and plans to bridge across into that too...If we get it, it'll be awesome...but the company who own it are fairly massive, so we shall see....
-
@NattNatt No worries there, just string cat6 through a couple windows, give it a tug to get the droop out
-
I'm running all CAT6 for premise wiring. I might still use some CAT5e patch cables, but those are easily enough swapped out. I have heard of some PoE+ cameras burning up when run over CAT 5 cable. I don't want to have to go and rewire a building because I saved a few bucks on the cable.
-
@Mike-Davis said:
I'm running all CAT6 for premise wiring. I might still use some CAT5e patch cables, but those are easily enough swapped out. I have heard of some PoE+ cameras burning up when run over CAT 5 cable. I don't want to have to go and rewire a building because I saved a few bucks on the cable.
That is just a silly thing to say. PoE and PoE+ require, per the IEEE standard, category 5, but is still allowed to be ran on category 3 for lower wattage workloads.
A camera burning up would be more likely to have been caused by poor termination or damage to the cable when it was ran. Of course the wire could be bad internally, but in more than 7 years professionally installing alarm systems (some on ethernet) and another 17 doing network cabling intermittently, I have never had a box of bad cable. I am sure it happens, but I have never seen it.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Mike-Davis said:
I'm running all CAT6 for premise wiring. I might still use some CAT5e patch cables, but those are easily enough swapped out. I have heard of some PoE+ cameras burning up when run over CAT 5 cable. I don't want to have to go and rewire a building because I saved a few bucks on the cable.
That is just a silly thing to say. PoE and PoE+ require, per the IEEE standard, category 5, but is still allowed to be ran on category 3 for lower wattage workloads.
A camera burning up would be more likely to have been caused by poor termination or damage to the cable when it was ran. Of course the wire could be bad internally, but in more than 7 years professionally installing alarm systems (some on ethernet) and another 17 doing network cabling intermittently, I have never had a box of bad cable. I am sure it happens, but I have never seen it.
Most manufacturs test the whole spool as one before it ships. I don't think I've ever seen bad cable either only bad termination or b damaged cable from installers putting too much stress on a cable.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@NattNatt No worries there, just string cat6 through a couple windows, give it a tug to get the droop out
That works with fibre too right?
-
@JaredBusch said:
That is just a silly thing to say. PoE and PoE+ require, per the IEEE standard, category 5, but is still allowed to be ran on category 3 for lower wattage workloads.
I haven't installed many PoE+ cameras and have only had those running less than a year. Do you have a number of PoE+ cameras running on CAT5? Longer runs? I'm wondering why the camera company I was dealing made such a big deal about 23 guage CAT6 for their cameras. Maybe because it had a heater?
