Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #2783 > unrolled thread

How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking

Contents

  How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Liam O'Connor <liamoconnor@example.com> - 2014-03-08 00:53 -0800
    Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2014-03-08 07:46 -0500
      Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Liam O'Connor <liamoconnor@example.com> - 2014-03-08 10:56 -0800
      Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Liam O'Connor <liamoconnor@example.com> - 2014-03-08 10:58 -0800
        Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Liam O'Connor <liamoconnor@example.com> - 2014-03-08 11:51 -0800
        Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2014-03-08 15:25 -0500
        Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2014-03-08 21:07 -0500
          Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2014-03-08 21:18 -0500
          Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-08 20:49 -0800
          Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Mark Lloyd <mark@this.is.not.email.invalid> - 2014-03-09 10:50 -0500
        Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2014-03-09 02:49 +0000
          Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-08 20:51 -0800
            Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-08 23:56 -0900
              Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-09 09:39 -0700
                Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-09 11:07 -0800
          Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-08 23:20 -0900
            Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Liam O'Connor <liamoconnor@example.com> - 2014-03-09 07:40 -0700
              Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2014-03-09 21:19 -0400
            Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-09 09:21 -0700
              Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-09 10:57 -0800
                Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-09 16:07 -0700
                  Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-09 17:05 -0800
              Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Liam O'Connor <liamoconnor@example.com> - 2014-03-10 10:40 -0700
                Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-10 12:06 -0800
                Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-10 20:07 -0700
                  Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-11 02:36 -0800
                    Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-11 19:30 -0700
                      Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-11 23:13 -0800
                        Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-12 21:30 -0700
                          Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-13 04:44 -0800
                            Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-13 20:20 -0700
                              Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-13 20:30 -0800
                                Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-13 22:59 -0700
                                  Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender mechanic <mechanic@example.net> - 2014-03-14 11:31 +0000
                                    Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-14 21:50 -0700
                                  Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-14 04:31 -0800
                                    Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender mechanic <mechanic@example.net> - 2014-03-14 13:45 +0000
                                      Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-14 07:26 -0800
                                        Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2014-03-14 11:07 -0500
                                          Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-14 10:23 -0800
                                      Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-14 22:02 -0700
                                        Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-14 21:53 -0800
                                          Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-15 09:49 -0700
                                        Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender mechanic <mechanic@example.net> - 2014-03-15 10:45 +0000
                                          Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-15 09:57 -0700
                                            Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-15 12:28 -0800
                                              Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-15 14:02 -0700
                                                Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-15 14:22 -0800
                                                  Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-15 21:55 -0700
                                                    Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-15 21:25 -0800
                                    Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-14 21:54 -0700
                                    Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-14 21:58 -0700
                    Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-11 19:33 -0700
                      Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-11 23:36 -0800
                        Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender ceed <ceed@is.indeed.invalid> - 2014-03-12 17:05 +0000
                        Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-12 21:48 -0700
                          Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-13 04:46 -0800
                    Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@tudelft.nl> - 2014-03-12 19:27 +0000
                      Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-03-12 13:32 -0800
                      Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-13 19:18 -0700
      Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Liam O'Connor <liamoconnor@example.com> - 2014-03-08 10:59 -0800
      Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Liam O'Connor <liamoconnor@example.com> - 2014-03-08 11:01 -0800
        Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2014-03-08 15:36 -0500
          Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Liam O'Connor <liamoconnor@example.com> - 2014-03-08 19:06 -0800
            Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-03-08 20:54 -0800
            Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2014-03-09 08:03 -0400
              Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Liam O'Connor <liamoconnor@example.com> - 2014-03-09 07:56 -0700
    Re: How to set up a spare Linksys WRT54Gv2 as a wired access point network extender Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> - 2014-03-08 17:42 -0800

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#2844

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:45:58 +0000, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> Gave
us:

>On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:31:02 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> As others have alluded, the janitor may not be a design
>> engineer, but he will have exactly the same mission goal!
>
>Yes there's nothing wrong with that as that kind of community spirit
>raises morale in the team, and makes clear what it is that gets them
>out of bed in the morning.
>
>As to this twisted pair thing, I've no idea what the specs are in
>particular cables but no-one seems to have mentioned the purpose of
>such a feature (if indeed it exists) - presumably to reduce
>crosstalk between pairs, but is that important in Ethernet
>applications?


  It was mentioned.  You just do not know how to read, much less read a
thread.

  There was discussion about crosstalk at the terminations, where
crosstalk occurs.  What makes you think it would occur in the twisted
segment?

  Learn to read instead of simpleton perusal.  You won't look like such
a simpleton that way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2845

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:45:58 +0000, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> Gave
>us:
>>As to this twisted pair thing, I've no idea what the specs are in
>>particular cables but no-one seems to have mentioned the purpose of
>>such a feature (if indeed it exists) - presumably to reduce
>>crosstalk between pairs, but is that important in Ethernet
>>applications?
>
>  It was mentioned.  You just do not know how to read, much less read a
>thread.
>
>  There was discussion about crosstalk at the terminations, where
>crosstalk occurs.  What makes you think it would occur in the twisted
>segment?

Crosstalk is not limited to "the terminations", nor for that
matter is that even where most of it should normally occur.  It
is quite true that most often out of specification crosstalk
will be due to faults at the connectors, but that is simply
because no other part of the cable is usually worked on.

With an in specs cable there is more crosstalk, generally, in
about the first 10-20% of the length of the cable, at each end.
That obviously includes the connectors, but it is far from
restricted to it.  The reason is simply that the RX pair has
the lowest signal and the TX pair has the highest signal that
they exhibit at any point along the cable.

>  Learn to read instead of simpleton perusal.  You won't look like such
>a simpleton that way.

It would help your credibility if you'd drop this sort of
comment.  I virtually always reflects more on the person making
such statements than on the one it is directed at.  In your case
that is universally true so far in this discussion.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson                         http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                      floyd@apaflo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2848

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:53:23 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Gave us:

>>  Learn to read instead of simpleton perusal.  You won't look like such
>>a simpleton that way.
>
>It would help your credibility if you'd drop this sort of
>comment.  

  You do not know the idiot.  He has done this crap before.  You'd be
best to stay out of my conversations with others.  Especially since you
know nothing about his posting history.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2846

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:02:25 -0700, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
wrote:

> There was discussion about crosstalk at the terminations, where
> crosstalk occurs.  What makes you think it would occur in the twisted
> segment?

Morning DLUNU, thanks to your minders for letting you out to play
again today. 

Now if you were concerned about different twist rates for different
pairs in a cable, the crosstalk you're worried about must occur in
the 'twisted segment', no? If it occurred only at the terminations
the twist rates of the various pairs could be the same with no
penalty? See the argument?

In telephone cables there were rules set out ages ago to try to
minimise crosstalk by choosing pairs in appropriate groups in big
transmission cables, I was just wondering if it was a real problem
in Ethernet cables or even Ethernet patch cords? Seems unlikely but
I wondered if there were any standards on this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2849

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:45:27 +0000, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> Gave
us:

>On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:02:25 -0700, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
>wrote:
>
>> There was discussion about crosstalk at the terminations, where
>> crosstalk occurs.  What makes you think it would occur in the twisted
>> segment?
>
>Morning DLUNU, thanks to your minders for letting you out to play
>again today. 
>

  Is there any post you make where you are not spouting elementary
school mentality horseshit?

>Now if you were concerned about different twist rates for different
>pairs in a cable, the crosstalk you're worried about must occur in
>the 'twisted segment', no? If it occurred only at the terminations
>the twist rates of the various pairs could be the same with no
>penalty? See the argument?

  You really are lost, child.  Even after the other person explained a
few things to you.

>In telephone cables there were rules set out ages ago to try to
>minimise crosstalk by choosing pairs in appropriate groups in big
>transmission cables, I was just wondering if it was a real problem
>in Ethernet cables or even Ethernet patch cords? Seems unlikely but
>I wondered if there were any standards on this.

  We don't call it "tip and ring".  Go back under your rock, loser
muckanic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2851

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:45:27 +0000, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> Gave
>us:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:02:25 -0700, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
>>wrote:
>>
>>> There was discussion about crosstalk at the terminations, where
>>> crosstalk occurs.  What makes you think it would occur in the twisted
>>> segment?
>>
>>Morning DLUNU, thanks to your minders for letting you out to play
>>again today.
>>
>
>  Is there any post you make where you are not spouting elementary
>school mentality horseshit?
>
>>Now if you were concerned about different twist rates for different
>>pairs in a cable, the crosstalk you're worried about must occur in
>>the 'twisted segment', no? If it occurred only at the terminations
>>the twist rates of the various pairs could be the same with no
>>penalty? See the argument?
>
>  You really are lost, child.  Even after the other person explained a
>few things to you.

His logic in that statement is astute and impeccable.

>>In telephone cables there were rules set out ages ago to try to
>>minimise crosstalk by choosing pairs in appropriate groups in big
>>transmission cables, I was just wondering if it was a real problem
>>in Ethernet cables or even Ethernet patch cords? Seems unlikely but
>>I wondered if there were any standards on this.
>
>  We don't call it "tip and ring".  Go back under your rock, loser
>muckanic.

But we do in fact call it tip and ring.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson                         http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                      floyd@apaflo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2852

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:28:14 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Gave us:

>DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:45:27 +0000, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> Gave
>>us:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:02:25 -0700, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> There was discussion about crosstalk at the terminations, where
>>>> crosstalk occurs.  What makes you think it would occur in the twisted
>>>> segment?
>>>
>>>Morning DLUNU, thanks to your minders for letting you out to play
>>>again today.
>>>
>>
>>  Is there any post you make where you are not spouting elementary
>>school mentality horseshit?
>>
>>>Now if you were concerned about different twist rates for different
>>>pairs in a cable, the crosstalk you're worried about must occur in
>>>the 'twisted segment', no? If it occurred only at the terminations
>>>the twist rates of the various pairs could be the same with no
>>>penalty? See the argument?
>>
>>  You really are lost, child.  Even after the other person explained a
>>few things to you.
>
>His logic in that statement is astute and impeccable.
>

  Sure...   where else can it take place at?

>>>In telephone cables there were rules set out ages ago to try to
>>>minimise crosstalk by choosing pairs in appropriate groups in big
>>>transmission cables, I was just wondering if it was a real problem
>>>in Ethernet cables or even Ethernet patch cords? Seems unlikely but
>>>I wondered if there were any standards on this.
>>
>>  We don't call it "tip and ring".  Go back under your rock, loser
>>muckanic.
>
>But we do in fact call it tip and ring.

  Old phone guys, sure.

  Modern IT folk...  not so much, if ever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2853

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:28:14 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>Gave us:
>
>>DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:45:27 +0000, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> Gave
>>>us:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:02:25 -0700, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There was discussion about crosstalk at the terminations, where
>>>>> crosstalk occurs.  What makes you think it would occur in the twisted
>>>>> segment?
>>>>
>>>>Morning DLUNU, thanks to your minders for letting you out to play
>>>>again today.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Is there any post you make where you are not spouting elementary
>>>school mentality horseshit?
>>>
>>>>Now if you were concerned about different twist rates for different
>>>>pairs in a cable, the crosstalk you're worried about must occur in
>>>>the 'twisted segment', no? If it occurred only at the terminations
>>>>the twist rates of the various pairs could be the same with no
>>>>penalty? See the argument?
>>>
>>>  You really are lost, child.  Even after the other person explained a
>>>few things to you.
>>
>>His logic in that statement is astute and impeccable.
>>
>
>  Sure...   where else can it take place at?

He logically showed that your statement was not possibly correct.

>>>>In telephone cables there were rules set out ages ago to try to
>>>>minimise crosstalk by choosing pairs in appropriate groups in big
>>>>transmission cables, I was just wondering if it was a real problem
>>>>in Ethernet cables or even Ethernet patch cords? Seems unlikely but
>>>>I wondered if there were any standards on this.
>>>
>>>  We don't call it "tip and ring".  Go back under your rock, loser
>>>muckanic.
>>
>>But we do in fact call it tip and ring.
>
>  Old phone guys, sure.
>
>  Modern IT folk...  not so much, if ever.

Unless they know what they are talking about.  And that will
continue to be true as long as color coding schemes for such
cables distinguish between the two wires of a pair.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson                         http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                      floyd@apaflo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2854

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:22:43 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Gave us:

>DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:28:14 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>Gave us:
>>
>>>DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:45:27 +0000, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> Gave
>>>>us:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:02:25 -0700, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There was discussion about crosstalk at the terminations, where
>>>>>> crosstalk occurs.  What makes you think it would occur in the twisted
>>>>>> segment?
>>>>>
>>>>>Morning DLUNU, thanks to your minders for letting you out to play
>>>>>again today.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Is there any post you make where you are not spouting elementary
>>>>school mentality horseshit?
>>>>
>>>>>Now if you were concerned about different twist rates for different
>>>>>pairs in a cable, the crosstalk you're worried about must occur in
>>>>>the 'twisted segment', no? If it occurred only at the terminations
>>>>>the twist rates of the various pairs could be the same with no
>>>>>penalty? See the argument?
>>>>
>>>>  You really are lost, child.  Even after the other person explained a
>>>>few things to you.
>>>
>>>His logic in that statement is astute and impeccable.
>>>
>>
>>  Sure...   where else can it take place at?
>
>He logically showed that your statement was not possibly correct.
>
>>>>>In telephone cables there were rules set out ages ago to try to
>>>>>minimise crosstalk by choosing pairs in appropriate groups in big
>>>>>transmission cables, I was just wondering if it was a real problem
>>>>>in Ethernet cables or even Ethernet patch cords? Seems unlikely but
>>>>>I wondered if there were any standards on this.
>>>>
>>>>  We don't call it "tip and ring".  Go back under your rock, loser
>>>>muckanic.
>>>
>>>But we do in fact call it tip and ring.
>>
>>  Old phone guys, sure.
>>
>>  Modern IT folk...  not so much, if ever.
>
>Unless they know what they are talking about.  And that will
>continue to be true as long as color coding schemes for such
>cables distinguish between the two wires of a pair.


 2500 on our campus, 80% of which are top engineers.  I'd bet that none
use the phraseology at all.  And few of those are even familiar with it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2855

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:22:43 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>Gave us:
>
>>DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:28:14 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>>Gave us:
>>>
>>>>DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:45:27 +0000, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> Gave
>>>>>us:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:02:25 -0700, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was discussion about crosstalk at the terminations, where
>>>>>>> crosstalk occurs.  What makes you think it would occur in the twisted
>>>>>>> segment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Morning DLUNU, thanks to your minders for letting you out to play
>>>>>>again today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Is there any post you make where you are not spouting elementary
>>>>>school mentality horseshit?
>>>>>
>>>>>>Now if you were concerned about different twist rates for different
>>>>>>pairs in a cable, the crosstalk you're worried about must occur in
>>>>>>the 'twisted segment', no? If it occurred only at the terminations
>>>>>>the twist rates of the various pairs could be the same with no
>>>>>>penalty? See the argument?
>>>>>
>>>>>  You really are lost, child.  Even after the other person explained a
>>>>>few things to you.
>>>>
>>>>His logic in that statement is astute and impeccable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Sure...   where else can it take place at?
>>
>>He logically showed that your statement was not possibly correct.
>>
>>>>>>In telephone cables there were rules set out ages ago to try to
>>>>>>minimise crosstalk by choosing pairs in appropriate groups in big
>>>>>>transmission cables, I was just wondering if it was a real problem
>>>>>>in Ethernet cables or even Ethernet patch cords? Seems unlikely but
>>>>>>I wondered if there were any standards on this.
>>>>>
>>>>>  We don't call it "tip and ring".  Go back under your rock, loser
>>>>>muckanic.
>>>>
>>>>But we do in fact call it tip and ring.
>>>
>>>  Old phone guys, sure.
>>>
>>>  Modern IT folk...  not so much, if ever.
>>
>>Unless they know what they are talking about.  And that will
>>continue to be true as long as color coding schemes for such
>>cables distinguish between the two wires of a pair.
>
> 2500 on our campus, 80% of which are top engineers.  I'd bet that none
>use the phraseology at all.  And few of those are even familiar with it.

Do you know as little about your engineers as you do about
network interface technology?

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson                         http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                      floyd@apaflo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2842

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:31:02 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Gave us:

>
>It's a digression when you go off topic to something that has no
>significance,

  You are the apparently low integrity dork who brought Bell up.

  Talk about no significance.  What did you steal to get where you are?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2843

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:31:02 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Gave us:

>>  You sure you want to follow the troll into this realm, Floyd?
>
>Well, as you noted above, I "didn't even retort".  I have no
>reason to follow you into that realm.

  I was referring to the troll who has been attacking my character.

  Nice attempt at twisting things though.  Pretty obvious you knew what
I meant.

  So, I guess now, you have reverted to playing?  You can shove that
stupid shit as well as your attacks on me right up your ass, pal.

  And you had the gall to cite me for being off topic.

  You want to attack someone, go find a bridge, and jump off.  Attack
yourself.  Stop acting like a 4-F twit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2820

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 02:36:38 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Gave us:

>Show us a cite where *anyone* that is credible demonstrates that
>as a fact.
>
>I guarantee you the hardware cannot determine the difference in
>twist rate between 50 per meter and 70 per meter.  Which is to
>say that it cannot determine which pair is which in a CAT 5
>cable.

  I already said that CAT 5 SUCKS!

  Where the fuck were you?

 Oh and YES, the HARDWARE DOES test the line and some CAN tell you if
you are miswired, and nearly all can tell you how far down a line it is
broken in a bad wire circumstance.  Those tests are made more reliably
by the twist variances.

  Guess some folks haven't been keeping up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2822

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 02:36:38 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>Gave us:
>
>>Show us a cite where *anyone* that is credible demonstrates that
>>as a fact.
>>
>>I guarantee you the hardware cannot determine the difference in
>>twist rate between 50 per meter and 70 per meter.  Which is to
>>say that it cannot determine which pair is which in a CAT 5
>>cable.
>
>  I already said that CAT 5 SUCKS!
>
>  Where the fuck were you?

CAT5 cable does not "suck".

> Oh and YES, the HARDWARE DOES test the line and some CAN tell you if
>you are miswired, and nearly all can tell you how far down a line it is
>broken in a bad wire circumstance.  Those tests are made more reliably
>by the twist variances.

An EtherNet interface can't even detect a split pair, and it
certainly cannot determine if the brown pair is exchanged with
the blue pair.

So just find a cite to explain anything about how that is done.

While a normal EtherNet interface does not have that type of
built in test capability, there are examples of test equipment
available, that can be manually applied to a line, which will
test for all variety of wiring errors.   Using a Time Domain
Reflectometer it is possible to locate specific faults such as
the impedance bump from a broken wire (or for that matter from
too sharp a bend in the wire).

>  Guess some folks haven't been keeping up.

Lets go back to the basic question, and restate the facts: The
specific color and or pair number in a CAT5, CAT5E, or CAT6
cable is not significant.  If different pairs are wired to the
appropriate pins for a particular data pair the connecting
interface will still function exactly as it should.

What that means in practical terms is that a cable can be wired
as T568A or T568B (or another "standard") as long as both ends
use the same standard.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson                         http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                      floyd@apaflo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2823

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 23:36:02 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

>>  I already said that CAT 5 SUCKS!
>>
>>  Where the fuck were you?
> 
> CAT5 cable does not "suck".

I have everything wired with CAT6 cables, not because I am convinced I 
need to but because there's not much difference in price. It would be 
interesting to know why CAT5 may suck and what kind of cabling doesn't 
though! :)

-- 
//ceed (indeed)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2827

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 23:36:02 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Gave us:

>  If different pairs are wired to the
>appropriate pins for a particular data pair the connecting
>interface will still function

yep

> exactly as it should.

 nope.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2829

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 23:36:02 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>Gave us:
>
>>  If different pairs are wired to the
>>appropriate pins for a particular data pair the connecting
>>interface will still function
>
>yep
>
>> exactly as it should.
>
> nope.

If that is true, why can't you cite discussion of it by other
sources?  Why can't you even explain how it would happen?

I'll repeat it again, there will not be any degradation of the
signal or the performance due to the use of different cable
pairs.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson                         http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                      floyd@apaflo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2824

In alt.os.linux Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
> say that it cannot determine which pair is which in a CAT 5
> cable.

But the OP was talking about a CAT 6 (six, not five) cable.
CATegory 6 cabling is for higher network speeds - like 1 GB/s -
(so called 1000BASE-T). It has a 250 MHz bandwidth as compared to
only 100 for CAT 5

PS: in the (still higher speed) CAT 7 cables the individual twisted
pairs are shielded INSIDE the cable against each other.
This permits frequencies up to 600 MHz
-- 
*****************************************************************
**  Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. EWI/CE  **
**  e-mail: E.J.M.Hartman@tudelft.nl - phone: +31-15-27 82525  **
*****************************************************************

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2825

Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@tudelft.nl> wrote:
>In alt.os.linux Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> say that it cannot determine which pair is which in a CAT 5
>> cable.
>
>But the OP was talking about a CAT 6 (six, not five) cable.

His initial statements did not specify any category, and the
discussion previous had been about CAT 5.  When challenged
he specified CAT5e and later cables.

The point is *still* the same: the interface hardware cannot
determine what the twist rate is, does not test which pairs are
used for which data, and will work perfectly well regardless of
which cable pair is assigned to which data.  And that is by
design, not accident.

>CATegory 6 cabling is for higher network speeds - like 1 GB/s -
>(so called 1000BASE-T). It has a 250 MHz bandwidth as compared to
>only 100 for CAT 5
>
>PS: in the (still higher speed) CAT 7 cables the individual twisted
>pairs are shielded INSIDE the cable against each other.
>This permits frequencies up to 600 MHz

CAT7 is not UTP, and is outside the range this discussion has
covered so far.

Regardless, the target speeds for each category level has not
been under contention, and anyone can use Google to get more
information if desired.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson                         http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                      floyd@apaflo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2831

On 12 Mar 2014 19:27:08 GMT, Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@tudelft.nl> Gave
us:

>In alt.os.linux Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> say that it cannot determine which pair is which in a CAT 5
>> cable.
>
>But the OP was talking about a CAT 6 (six, not five) cable.
>CATegory 6 cabling is for higher network speeds - like 1 GB/s -
>(so called 1000BASE-T). It has a 250 MHz bandwidth as compared to
>only 100 for CAT 5
>
>PS: in the (still higher speed) CAT 7 cables the individual twisted
>pairs are shielded INSIDE the cable against each other.
>This permits frequencies up to 600 MHz


  Even though we fashion hand fabricated cat 7 runs at work for some mil
stuff, it is not a recognized standard.

  We do it mostly for Tempest shielding requirements.

  The T i m m y T a r d will have to look that one up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking

csiph-web