Impact of CAT3 connector with CAT5 cable for high-speed an..

[Guest]

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

I know that CAT5 cabling is the minimum demand for 100Mbs and 1000Mbs
Ethernet. But does that also include the RJ45 connector?

In other words: Does it make any noticable difference (e.g. frame loss
etc.)whether a CAT3 or CAT5 RJ45 connector is used in combination with
a CAT5 cable?

Thanks in advance,

Johan

 

[Guest]

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

Johan Lucas <jl@prodrive.nl> wrote:
> I know that CAT5 cabling is the minimum demand for 100Mbs and
> 1000Mbs Ethernet. But does that also include the RJ45 connector?

Yes. The actual requirement for 100baseTX and 1000baseT is
a Category 5 channel which is described by certain electrical
parameters, most critically attenuation and crosstalk.

Cable and parts are labelled "Cat5" by the manufacturer in
the fervent hope that if they are not abused too much during
installation, the resulting channel will meet Category 5 specs.

> In other words: Does it make any noticable difference
> (e.g. frame loss etc.)whether a CAT3 or CAT5 RJ45 connector
> is used in combination with a CAT5 cable?

You are talking of jacks (female connectors) where various
designs are seen. I've never seen Category ratings on Plugs
(male crimp-on ends) although there is a bewildering variety
for other purposes and you have to select correctly.

There often are major differences between jacks labelled Cat5
and others. The Cat5 designs reduce crosstalk. Whether this
difference is enough to cause dropped frames is going to be
very installation dependant.

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

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

Johan Lucas wrote:

> I know that CAT5 cabling is the minimum demand for 100Mbs and 1000Mbs
> Ethernet. But does that also include the RJ45 connector?

> In other words: Does it make any noticable difference (e.g. frame loss
> etc.)whether a CAT3 or CAT5 RJ45 connector is used in combination with
> a CAT5 cable?

As for plugs, not that I know of.

For jacks, most likely it will work fine for 100baseTX unless
you are close to the distance limit.

1000baseT will be much more problematic.

There is a margin built into the standards, so it might
still work, anyway.

If you are being paid to do it, do it right.

-- glen

 

[Guest]

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

Thanks for the replies.

So it does make difference, dependant on the application, cable lenght
etc. The problem is that some connector manufacturers do not specify a
specific CAT3 or CAT5 etc. in their datasheet. Which obviously is a
important design issue...

regards,

 

[Guest]

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

Johan Lucas wrote:

> Thanks for the replies.
>
> So it does make difference, dependant on the application, cable lenght
> etc. The problem is that some connector manufacturers do not specify a
> specific CAT3 or CAT5 etc. in their datasheet. Which obviously is a
> important design issue...

I've never seen a CAT5 jack that wasn't described as such. If it's not in
the datasheet then assume it's not CAT5.

> regards,

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

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

In article <cb6rdp026mf@news4.newsguy.com>, jclarke@nospam.invalid
says...
> I've never seen a CAT5 jack that wasn't described as such. If it's not in
> the datasheet then assume it's not CAT5.

And don't forget that using jacks for stranded cables on solid core
cable will give you flaky performance.


--

hsb

"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
********************************************************************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
********************************************************************

 

[Guest]

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

Hansang Bae wrote:

> In article <cb6rdp026mf@news4.newsguy.com>, jclarke@nospam.invalid
> says...
>> I've never seen a CAT5 jack that wasn't described as such. If it's not
>> in the datasheet then assume it's not CAT5.
>
> And don't forget that using jacks for stranded cables on solid core
> cable will give you flaky performance.

Or plugs--remember though that plugs are not rated--any RJ-45 plug (or
whatever the pedantically correct designation is) should work fine with
CAT5, as long as you use the right plug for the type of wire you're using
(i.e. stranded vs solid, also there are some for "flat satin" cable that
will excessively deform round cables of the type used for data).

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

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

Hansang Bae <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote:
> And don't forget that using jacks for stranded cables on solid core
> cable will give you flaky performance.

I've never seen jacks for stranded. Only solid. I thought
the typical 110 style IDC was unreliable on stranded because
the core would squish.

Plugs I've seen in all sorts of flavors: stranded, solid,
round, flat, 2 crimp, three crimp, shielded, ...

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

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

In article <vMOBc.2306$Ag3.1445@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
redelm@ev1.net.invalid says...
> I've never seen jacks for stranded. Only solid. I thought
> the typical 110 style IDC was unreliable on stranded because
> the core would squish.
> Plugs I've seen in all sorts of flavors: stranded, solid,
> round, flat, 2 crimp, three crimp, shielded, ...


My use of the word jack == your plug.

--

hsb

"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
********************************************************************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
********************************************************************