Is Cabling up for Networking or Phone Systems Still Justified?
TheScullster
Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype re: wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.
Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?
TIA
Phil
John Laird
Wired phone system, no. But there are no end of niggles with wireless
networking, it seems to me. Handy to have, but nowhere near as
reliable as TP, ime.
What you *should* have done is run fibre around the house, although the
various media convertors might have proved a touch expensive ;-)
--
"Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped."
Peter Andrews
"John Laird" <lai...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167987424.2...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
Wired phone system, yes. When you are in bed and fire breaks out downstairs
and trips your power supply your bedside DECT phone is simply an ornament!
There is a place for DECT phones and I have several - but I also have a
number of wired extensions.
Also network cabling is faster and more reliable, but again I also have a
wireless access point.
Peter
Andy McKenzie
"TheScullster" <ph...@dropthespam.com> wrote in message
news:8s6dnVQKLIUskgPY...@eclipse.net.uk...
Coincidently I just read a review of a wireless media streamer, capable of
streaming HD video from a PC to a TV
(http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/04/review_netgear_digital_eva700/). It
noted that
'if you're looking to push HD through the device, you're probably better off
sticking to the wired link. With an un-congested 802.11g network and the
wind behind it, it'll just about cope with HD over wireless, but if anyone
else is using the connection, then dropped frames and blocky pictures could
ensue.'
That seems a reasonable endorsment of the need for cables. I personally
think of wireless vs wires like a helicopter vs a road - take the helicopter
to get a light load to the bottom of the garden, take the road when you want
to move a few tonnes cheaply.
Andy
John Rumm
> Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
> the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?
For network acccess, wired still offers better speed, reliability, and
security. It is also easier to configure. As the amount of data we
stream about our homes increases (and our neighbours) this will become
more apparent.
Telecoms almost becomes a non issue since it can share the same wiring
as the network if it is done right. DECT is ok, but wired phones still
offer a reliability and simplicity that they don't.
Finally if you want to add your own PBX then wires are still the way to
go as well.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Ron Lowe
Wired networking is certainly worth it IMHO.
Gigabit switched networking against 56 ( or a bit more ) Mbit shared just
doesn't compare, especially if you are shifting large DVD ISOs around the
network for example.
There are also plenty pieces of networking kit that are designed for wired
operation, which would require you to buy wireless bridges for. I've yet to
see a wireless bridge that supports high-end security options like
WPA2-Enterprise which I use on my network. An un-necessary,
poorer-performing ( if it can be made to work at all ), cumbersome
alternative to wired, if wired is an option.
Also, if you have any plans to use VoIP, then wired networking can provide
Power-over-Ethernet, which is a tidy way to hook up your phones.
I use wireless only where wired is difficult or inconvenient.
It's nice on the laptops in the middle of the living room, or sitting on a
kitchen worktop for example.
--
Ron
tony sayer
TheScullster <ph...@dropthespam.com> writes
Yes, reliability and performance and rejection of interference from all
those licence exempt devices that surround you...
And Yes we do have a wireless access point for visitors!....
--
Tony Sayer
John Laird
> Wired phone system, yes. When you are in bed and fire breaks out downstairs
> and trips your power supply your bedside DECT phone is simply an ornament!
I have a perfectly good mobile phone for just such an emergency.
Besides, I would have to extend your argument to placing a wired
extension phone next to the beds of everyone in the house who might
have to call 999 and so that's at least 3 upstairs. I'm quite happy to
have one wired phone downstairs.
--
"Have cursor, will curse."
Al, Cambridge, UK
I've found it very flexible to have very simple CAT5 cabling between 3
rooms (double socket in each room, wired to each of the other two to
make a sort of triangle) as well as a wireless access point and then
expand as necessary with switches (which are cheaper than additional
cable & sockets) because:
- Initially used a couple of older PCs with cheap network cards
- Some visiting computers haven't been wireless
- We have a network printer and network filestore
Worked well for us and fairly discrete except in the office with most
of the kit.
Al
.
you've had some really traditional answers re cables but if you actually
think about what you are going to access the web/whatever with, you'll
come to the conclusion* that you have 1 main PC, one laptop and maybe
a pocket PC. the laptop will have wi-fi built in, so will the pocket PC so
to get the benefit from their portability you'd need at least an access point.
might as well use a wireless router and take time to RTFM which will
remove 99% of connection and security issues. I have three or four
PCs lying about the place and whereas they had to be in a room with
a cat5 outlet or one with a temporary cable running into it, now I just
add an £8 wireless NIC and I'm on. sometimes I have to right click and
repair the wireless connection, big deal, 1 min later I'm back online.
all this tosh about network speed is willy waving, really. who /really/
wants to push HDTV over wi-fi when there's a far simpler method of
watching movies ? whoo, yeah, I can send a 3gb file over my network
in x minutes ... most people would use a DVD and take much less time.
excuse me, I'm just about to take my wi-fi laptop into the cat5 free kitchen
to read a recipe for slow cooked shin beef in ale with thyme dumplings.
*no kids, most other computers in boxes.
manat...@hotmail.com
On Jan 5, 8:57 am, "John Laird" <lai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> TheScullster wrote:
> > Just a general enquiry really.
> > Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
> > installation of network and phone cabling.
> > This is obviously at odds to the current hype re: wireless
> > networking/broadband etc.
> > I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
> > beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.
>
> > Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
> > the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?
> Wired phone system, no. But there are no end of niggles with wireless
> networking, it seems to me. Handy to have, but nowhere near as
> reliable as TP, ime.
>
I second that, especially concerning Belkin wireless kit.
MBQ
manat...@hotmail.com
On Jan 5, 9:07 am, "Peter Andrews" <p.andr...@blueblueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> Wired phone system, yes. When you are in bed and fire breaks out downstairs
> and trips your power supply your bedside DECT phone is simply an ornament!
The smoke alarm should have woken you long before the power trips.
> There is a place for DECT phones and I have several - but I also have a
> number of wired extensions.
Getting everyone out comes higher on my list than trying to 'phone
anyone, even if it means jumping out of a window. If it's got to the
stage where summoning rescue by 'phone is your only hope, then you are
probably doomed anyway ;-)
MBQ
The Natural Philosopher
Its faster than wireless.
Its more secure than wireless
It works in electrically unfriendly environments.
Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell their
100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.
You can run hones over it,
You can run alarms over it.
The ONLY downside is it is a pain to run wires,..but if you are rewiring
anyway, its a no brainer IMHO.
> TIA
>
> Phil
>
>
.
> Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell their
> 100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.
<strokes chin>
I wonder why everyone's selling.
Styx
To upgrade to gigabit ethernet, perhaps?
.
for the diehard cable users/gamers no doubt, but I'll bet a lot of the
kit is going because people are /upgrading/ to wi-fi specifically
because of the benefits it offers over cable in houses with multiple
PCs, laptops and pocket PCs. even digital cameras have wi-fi
these days but it still remains horses for courses.
Andy Hall
I think that the short answer to this one is yes.
Just to put a perspective on this, I've worked in the networking industry
with various technologies for over 25 years - right back to when ethernet
involved a thick yellow co-ax cable that you had to drill and tap into in order
to make connections. The slightly later 10base2 (thin coax) ethernet
that was popular
for a while was the first that was perhaps realistic to install for a
small workgroup
or home network. That worked OK but tended to suffer from reliability
problems
because of the large number of connectors physically involved.
Undoubtedly CAT5 technology made the big difference to the practicality
of quite a lot of
network installation, and the components and cable have become extremely cheap.
WiFi has obviously made a huge contribution as well in terms of convenience and
for a lot of applications gives good results.
In enterprise (large company) environments, I typically see relatively
limited deployments
(depends on the business and sector) and a lot of trouble taken over
design and security,
to make sure that coverage is right but that the overall security of
the company network
is not compromised by the wireless network. Usually this is
accomplished by using higher
end access point devices - e.g. Cisco which have a variety of security
mechanisms built in
and there is effort made to fix bugs in the firmware that risk
compromising the performance
and security; and to have additional mechanisms like firewalls and
secured VPNs to
further raise the security barrier.
Smaller businesses and home users tend to buy the cheaper,
off-the-shelf wireless products
that you will probably have seen on the shelves of PC World and on the
web. Manufacturers
include the usual suspects such as Linksys, D-Link, Netgear,
Belkin,..... and so on.
These are supposed to work with minimal set-up and to an extent be an
out of the box product.
To a first degree, that is true. People with little technical skill
can get them working by following
a quick install guide. Where a physical card has to be installed in
a PC or equivalent, there are
the usual possible issues with drivers, interrupt conflicts and all
the rest of it which can cause
problems and sometimes be difficult to address. This has been made
easier by devices
such as notebooks, printers and PDAs having WiFi built in.
Having said that, most people seem to be quite clueless about
installation and security and there
are several issues there. Security has been publicised a lot and the
reasonably sensible are
able to do a reasonable first level job by using WPA security. It has
its shortcomings, but generally
all that is required for a home network is to enter a text password on
each device - a lot easier
and somewhat more secure than the earlier WEP mechanism which was not
that secure and
which often required users to enter passwords in hexadecimal on some
devices and text on another.
A surprisingly large number of people still don't bother. Recently,
I made a train trip of about
an hour from Waterloo, going through the suburbs of inner and outer
London and beyond. I was
using my Mac for some other work, but turned on a utility called
iStumbler. This activates the WiFi
interface and scans listening for access points. It displays a list
of what it finds with SSIDs (name
of the wireless LAN), plus channels, security status and type and
signal strengths. It doesn't attempt
to join the network, but will identify and log the presence of an
access point based on a couple of samples.
So even with the train moving along it was able to detect over a
hundred wireless LANs installed
within a couple of hundred metres or less of the railway line - this
was a mix of domestic and office
networks. Of this lot, only around a half had WPA or WEP turned on.
So it's like a burglar alarm. It won't protect against the determined
attacker (if he believes the prize
is worth it) but will make most try the next house. Most people if
asked, wouldn't be keen on their neighbours
sniffing into their financial information or getting free ride on
their internet connection.
The next point is about installation and channel selection. The
radio band used (around 2.4GHz) is
an unlicensed one in most countries. It is the place where a lot of
devices can potentially be run
including microwave ovens, video senders and other devices. These may
not generally be a
specific problem, but if you are in a location where you have a lot of
neighbours with wireless LANs within
range, there can be various problems with some equipment. One example
is if access devices close
by are running on the same or nearby channels (there are 13 in the UK,
although some equipment supports
only 11 because that is the limit in some countries). Radio
interference can certainly affect reliability
and performance of the connection; so if you are going to use WiFi it
makes good sense to do a survey
around your house and property to see what is close by. This can be
done with free software like NetStumbler
to a reasonable degree. It's best to avoid channels used by
neighbouring WLANs and indeed adjacent
ones. Of course a lot of people are unaware of this and don't change
the defaults, so if a bunch of neighbours
talk to one another and go out and buy the same vendor's product, they
will probably all be on
the same channel unless someone changes theirs. Ideally, it's an
idea to choose a channel that is two
or three away from others, especially if the signal is strong from a
neighbouring access point.
Even so, location of access point(s) in the house is quite important to
get good coverage.
Going on from this are the issues of speed and reliability. The
newer technologies of 802,11g (Wireless G) and various ones leading to
802,11n (Wireless -N, pre-N and others) promise higher speeds than the
original nominal 11Mbit technology. However, the raw, marketed rates
of 11, 54 and 108Mbits are not really achieved reliably
in typical installatations. There are various reasons for this.
Firstly, the wireless and various IP protocols used by the equipment
and applications reduce the real rate of data transfer quite
substantially - can be as little as 10% of the published speed that is
actually achieved. Secondly there is the interference and wireless
coverage issue. Thirdly, there is the behaviour of other devices of
yours joining the WLAN. All can have an impact.
Another factor is the quality and reliability of the firmware in the
wireless components. The lower end manufacturers do not invest a lot
in this, and for most products you will see 2-3 firmware updates during
a product's lifetime on sale. After that, there are generally no bug
fixes even if there are product problems.
Bad things certainly do happen. I have seen wireless access points
and routers that regularly run into trouble
and need to be rebooted every few days or even sooner. Generally
this is due to bugs in the firmware.
Of course, if you are using a Microsoft "operating system" you will
rebooting the PC anyway quite frequently.
Again if a determined hacker figures out the device (some manufacturers
have their name as the default SSID, others even the model), then they
may be able to launch a security or denial of service attack. This is
probably not that common in a residential setting, but if you are
concerned about these things there is certainly
a risk factor. Some wireless products turn out to be lemons.
Therefore it is unwise to buy the latest and greatest,
and much more sensible to wait for at least one firmware update and to
read user reviews.
In terms of speed, if the only application is internet access and
especially email and web access, then WiFi can be a good solution.
In most cases, the available WiFi speed will exceed that of the ISP
connection.
If you are concerned about wanting to do device to device communication
in your house, then I think you need to look more carefully. Speed
and connection reliability are still at a point where, for some
applications in some environments, the results are inferior to what can
be achieved with wired networking.
If you want to transfer large amounts of data where starting from the
beginning because the connection dropped
out is unacceptable, then you may want to check that carefully for
example. Some applications such as certain
types of media streaming sometimes do not work well on wireless connections.
So.... for my usage, I use both wired and wireless networks. There
is no doubt that the portability of WiFi is useful and convenient for
some devices and applications. However, for many usage cases, that
can be achieved by having a good distribution of wired outlets. For
example, if I want to use a notebook in any room of the house, I can
plug it into an outlet with a relatively short cable. I don't really
want to do that in the garden and not at all with a PDA. I've taken
quite a bit of trouble to secure the wireless LAN (all of the measures
mentioned above used by enterprises, and some more) and have used good
quality equipment with proper support of firmware.
Nonetheless, I do have applications that are sensitive to connection
dropouts and have to do file transfers of tens of gigabytes. I don't
use the WLAN for those.
My usage cases and the trouble I have gone to to secure and install the
WLAN correctly are probably not needed by a lot of people, but again
you can recognise the application areas where there may be issues.
The technology is certainly useful, but I wouldn't use it as the only
form of networking in the house.
The Natural Philosopher
You are talking to a man with a 10 year old pc driving a 7 and a 20
year old printer via cabling that was young last century, with a second
hand ADSL router, in a 19" rack I got free as scrap..My stuff works, and
goes on working.
My sister in law spent a fortune on a laptop, and a wirless router, got
someone in to make it all work, and it seldom does.
HE says its to do with the mobile phone tower at the bottom of the
garden I think hes a wanker. However its hard to tell because every time
we phone them up they can't find the radio phone and so never answer. My
phones can't be carried off in my wife's hand, because they are plugged
into the wall. This is fortunate because she has wandered off with 17
cigarette lighters, and I can't find a single one. The ones that the new
puppy hasn't chewed up that is. Of course it would take him longer -
maybe 2 minutes, to destroy a DECT phone..
And of course the little cheap analog PABX here will take a 10 quid
phone, and acts as a door answering machine as well. And will distribute
two incoming lines all round the house.
Wireless routers and phones suit youngsters who have never put a plug on
a cable in their lives, in ditzy new flats where they don't want to even
THINK about laying a cable. They are to busy laying each other. I see no
reason to not profit from their profligacy, do you?
The Natural Philosopher
The Natural Philosopher
In order to run a print job to their USB connected printer a picosecond
quicker?
.
new build? I'd put fiber in, for dedicated use, and wi-fi for everything else.
however, in terms of reference relevant to 90% of the population, wi-fi is
preferable to cabling an existing dwelling. most ofthe problems with wi-fi
are due to the loose nut in front of the monitor ;-)
horses for courses.
.
that should be formatted, de personalised (I's and Yous') and added to
the DIY wiki as it sums everything up very nicely indeed.
TheScullster
"Andy Hall" wrote
>
> I think that the short answer to this one is yes.
>
> Just to put a perspective on this, I've worked in the networking industry
> with various technologies for over 25 years - right back to when ethernet
....snip....
Thanks Andy for such a comprehensive overview.
I already have Cat5 around the house to the majority of rooms.
Am constantly being hassled by kids and SWMBO for broadband.
To avoid the security issues and the issue of having kids monopolising every
room in the house with wireless laptops etc. I am inclined to stick with the
wired solution for broadband. Then add a wireless access point later when
the kids have gone!
Phil
Dave Plowman (News)
Well, I'd be delighted to hear of any radio link that works better than
cable. It might under certain circumstances work nearly as well, but under
many more not.
Wireless links are ideal when you're on the move or cabling is impossible.
Other than that best avoided.
--
*No radio - Already stolen.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Harry Bloomfield
> Hi all
I have wired up the entire house for both too, but it is only useful
for those things which permanently reside at fixed places. CAT5 is
obviously faster than wireless, but that is only of use when large
files need to be moved between system in a hurry.
--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
Harry Bloomfield
> Wired phone system, yes. When you are in bed and fire breaks out downstairs
> and trips your power supply your bedside DECT phone is simply an ornament!
> There is a place for DECT phones and I have several - but I also have a
> number of wired extensions.
Isn't that where a mobile comes in?
Bob Eager
<harry.m1...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> I have wired up the entire house for both too, but it is only useful
> for those things which permanently reside at fixed places. CAT5 is
> obviously faster than wireless, but that is only of use when large
> files need to be moved between system in a hurry.
I rewired the whole house for everything, so it wasn't much bother.
Power, telephone (with PBX), burglar alarm, smoke alarms, etc. Plus
network of course. As for the 'fixed places' thing, I just have a LOT of
network sockets (about 30) so there is always one nearby. The house
isn't very suited to wifi, and so far visitors have just plugged into
the nearest socket. I guess an access point will appear some time.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> . wrote:
>>> Styx wrote:
>>>> . wrote:
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell their
>>>>>> 100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.
>>>>> <strokes chin>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder why everyone's selling.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> To upgrade to gigabit ethernet, perhaps?
>>> for the diehard cable users/gamers no doubt, but I'll bet a lot of the
>>> kit is going because people are /upgrading/ to wi-fi specifically
>>> because of the benefits it offers over cable in houses with multiple
>>> PCs, laptops and pocket PCs. even digital cameras have wi-fi
>>> these days but it still remains horses for courses.
>>>
>>>
>> But if you actually cabled the house when you built it..
>
> new build? I'd put fiber in, for dedicated use, and wi-fi for everything else.
fiber termination bits are alot more expensive than a secondhand 100Mbps
switch that ios being tossed in a skip..and 100Mbps cards likewise.
> however, in terms of reference relevant to 90% of the population, wi-fi is
> preferable to cabling an existing dwelling. most ofthe problems with wi-fi
> are due to the loose nut in front of the monitor ;-)
>
Thats because they aren't D-I-Yers.
> horses for courses.
>
>
Osprey
Good comments from Andy.
I did a very large project for a major Telcoms provider, and the
problems we had country wide with the unlicensed spectrum that is
allocated (2.4GHz) was very significant.
When we had performance issues - a sniffer would show that packet
retransmission was far higher than people expected - due to blocking of
channels by all sorts of devices.
Bluetooth phones, PDA's, motion detectors, microwaves, Wireless Lans
etc.
This brought the expected data throughput down dramatically form the
theoretical figures expected.
Most companies will stick to cabled infrastructure, cheap, manageable,
understood, and almost immune from interference.
In my own house I have multiple CAT5e & CT100 points to every room,
when my son had a PC for XMAS ... took seconds to patch him in to my
ethernet router.
I can also unplug him just as easily :-)
Yes I have a WiFi access point for when I want to use my lap top and
move about in the house, but this is secure (reasonably) with WPA-PSK
TKIP encryption, and even then once a link established a VPN
connection is used.
I agree with Andy - I have checked locally ... and most of my
neighbours have open port WiFi modems on their Broadband lines.
Wired is safer and more sensible for the home.
Bob Eager
wrote:
> I did a very large project for a major Telcoms provider, and the
> problems we had country wide with the unlicensed spectrum that is
> allocated (2.4GHz) was very significant.
> When we had performance issues - a sniffer would show that packet
> retransmission was far higher than people expected - due to blocking of
> channels by all sorts of devices.
> Bluetooth phones, PDA's, motion detectors, microwaves, Wireless Lans
> etc.
> This brought the expected data throughput down dramatically form the
> theoretical figures expected.
Good point. I shall remember that.
> In my own house I have multiple CAT5e & CT100 points to every room,
Ah, yes...I did the CT100 too...!
> when my son had a PC for XMAS ... took seconds to patch him in to my
> ethernet router.
> I can also unplug him just as easily :-)
Yes...same here. Also good for unplugging the CT100 from his
room...haven't yet worked out how to 'remote disable' a GameBoy being
played under the bedclothes...!
Adrian C
> Peter Andrews expressed precisely :
>> Wired phone system, yes. When you are in bed and fire breaks out
>> downstairs and trips your power supply your bedside DECT phone is
>> simply an ornament! There is a place for DECT phones and I have
>> several - but I also have a number of wired extensions.
>
> Isn't that where a mobile comes in?
Mobile Handheld on 2m, S20 'CQ.... er, help.... my QTH is on fire???'
:-p
--
Adrian C
Dave Liquorice
> Isn't that where a mobile comes in?
Still not to be relied upon for emergency communications as many people
round here found out when the power to the local cell went off for
12+hrs. Some networks went with the power, others lasted a couple of
hours on UPS but in the end they all died.
A POTS phone will generally work a lot more reliably than a GSM mobile or
DECT device.
--
Cheers new...@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
David Hansen
<to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote this:-
>And Yes we do have a wireless access point for visitors!....
Their laptops presumably have little sockets, into which network
cables can be plugged.
Personally, a visitor can use the little sockets I have provided in
the bedrooms or living room. There are no little sockets in the
kitchen for anything, as that is for cooking in rather than playing
with toys and the amount of mess while cooking means that this is a
service to them:-)
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Bob Eager
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:19:25 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
> <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
> >And Yes we do have a wireless access point for visitors!....
>
> Their laptops presumably have little sockets, into which network
> cables can be plugged.
>
> Personally, a visitor can use the little sockets I have provided in
> the bedrooms or living room. There are no little sockets in the
> kitchen for anything, as that is for cooking in rather than playing
> with toys and the amount of mess while cooking means that this is a
> service to them:-)
Oh, we do have a socket under the breakfast bar. Just in case one day we
get an IPv6 Internet enabled toaster...
Harry Bloomfield
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:34:14 GMT, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>> Isn't that where a mobile comes in?
> Still not to be relied upon for emergency communications as many people
> round here found out when the power to the local cell went off for
> 12+hrs. Some networks went with the power, others lasted a couple of
> hours on UPS but in the end they all died.
> A POTS phone will generally work a lot more reliably than a GSM mobile or
> DECT device.
What is the likelihood of your house catching fire, the dect phone
failing as a result of the fire and the local cell also failing all at
exactly the same time as you need to ring the fire brigade?
Dave Liquorice
>>> Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell
>>> their 100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.
>>
>> <strokes chin>
>>
>> I wonder why everyone's selling.
>
> Simply fashion.
And the fact that if you visit any of the shed type stores you'll find
shelves of wireless networky stuff, complete with rather iffy marketing
claims. And tucked away at the bottom a little bit of cabled kit, that
marketing can't puff up.
And the fact that a majority of the great unwashed couldn't clip a cable
to the skirting for love nor money let alone terminate the cable
correctly in the sockets.
And the fact that even if they could clip a cable "the management"
wouldn't let them and hiding a cable in a modern box is next to
impossible, But at least modern boxes with an internal soil stacks have a
nice duct running from the roof space through all floors. B-)
raden
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>In article <8s6dnVQKLIUskgPY...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> TheScullster <ph...@dropthespam.com> wrote:
>> Just a general enquiry really. Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling
>> that people were still advocating installation of network and phone
>> cabling. This is obviously at odds to the current hype re: wireless
>> networking/broadband etc. I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines
>> to most rooms, but am beginning to think that technology has overtaken
>> this.
>
>> Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone
>> support the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?
>
>Well, I'd be delighted to hear of any radio link that works better than
>cable. It might under certain circumstances work nearly as well, but under
>many more not.
>
>Wireless links are ideal when you're on the move or cabling is impossible.
>Other than that best avoided.
>
wireless networks to choose from
--
geoff
raden
<rd...@spamcop.net> writes
>On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:32:53 UTC, Harry Bloomfield
><harry.m1...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have wired up the entire house for both too, but it is only useful
>> for those things which permanently reside at fixed places. CAT5 is
>> obviously faster than wireless, but that is only of use when large
>> files need to be moved between system in a hurry.
>
>I rewired the whole house for everything, so it wasn't much bother.
>Power, telephone (with PBX), burglar alarm, smoke alarms, etc. Plus
>network of course. As for the 'fixed places' thing, I just have a LOT of
>network sockets (about 30) so there is always one nearby. The house
>isn't very suited to wifi, and so far visitors have just plugged into
>the nearest socket. I guess an access point will appear some time.
>
CAT5 (1000 feet) under the floorboards, so there are multiple cables
from more or less everywhere to everywhere else - £10 well spent, I
think
--
geoff
Dave Liquorice
> What is the likelihood of your house catching fire, the dect phone
> failing as a result of the fire and the local cell also failing all at
> exactly the same time as you need to ring the fire brigade?
Not particularly high, just pointing out that mobiles etc are not to be
relied upon in an emergency. Many people think of a phone as a phone and
do not realise that a mobile is no where near as reliable as a POTS phone
when the infrastructure comes under stress.
John Rumm
> might as well use a wireless router and take time to RTFM which will
> remove 99% of connection and security issues. I have three or four
Most connection issues IME come down to lack of range through different
building materials and incompatibility of different vendors kit. Alas
neither of these can always be fixed by reading the fine manual on the
occations one is provided.
> PCs lying about the place and whereas they had to be in a room with
> a cat5 outlet or one with a temporary cable running into it, now I just
> add an ｣8 wireless NIC and I'm on. sometimes I have to right click and
> repair the wireless connection, big deal, 1 min later I'm back online.
>
> all this tosh about network speed is willy waving, really. who /really/
> wants to push HDTV over wi-fi when there's a far simpler method of
> watching movies ? whoo, yeah, I can send a 3gb file over my network
> in x minutes ... most people would use a DVD and take much less time.
Don't agree - I sometimes do want to shift large files about the network
- for example when video editing, performing backups, moving disk images
and ISOs (which I use via virtual CD/DVD drives etc). I may at times
want to rip a bunch of DVDs to one machine using available DVD drives
dotted about the network - even fully working WiFi slows down any of
these activities noticeably.
> excuse me, I'm just about to take my wi-fi laptop into the cat5 free kitchen
> to read a recipe for slow cooked shin beef in ale with thyme dumplings.
Nothing wrong with WiFi - it has many uses. However for many of us it
does not come anywhere close to being a replacement for cat5 yet alas.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
kimble
> all this tosh about network speed is willy waving, really. who /really/
> wants to push HDTV over wi-fi when there's a far simpler method of
> watching movies ?
Or any similar application that requires a high-throughput and
reasonably reliable network. Just because a network-oriented PVR system
is not currently a mainstream application doesn't mean it isn't useful
or desirable to non-specialised users. It's certainly not just
willy-waving.
I'm using MythTV to great success on a wired network, but from what I've
read on the user lists, 802.11G works reasonably well for SD content[1],
assuming the network isn't being degraded by other traffic, the wrong
kind of walls or interference. Which is a fairly large assumption.
Kim.
--
[1] MythTV usually streams DVB recordings in the format in which they
were broadcast. Use of timestretch and picture-in-picture will increase
the throughput accordingly. Bandwidth requirements for HDTV left as an
exercise for the reader.
meow...@care2.com
> On 2007-01-05 08:45:06 +0000, "TheScullster" <ph...@dropthespam.com> said:
> > Hi all
> >
> > Just a general enquiry really.
> > Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still
> > advocating installation of network and phone cabling.
> > This is obviously at odds to the current hype re: wireless
> > networking/broadband etc.
> > I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
> > beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.
> >
> > Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone
> > support the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Phil
> I think that the short answer to this one is yes.
Megasnip
There's more reason as well. LV wiring isnt only good for computer
networks & phone, there are a bundle of apps that are fairly likely to
become wanted over the next n years, and cable already in place can be
used for any of these. Some examples include
* heating control (room by room monitor & control of temp, and possibly
other factors like controlling extraction fans and detecting/learning
which rooms are used when)
* backup lighting
* burglar alarms
* intercom
* fire alarms
and who knows what other apps that might become desirable over the
decades ahead.
Given the chance I'd always put a bunch of cat5e in, not just one cable
but the whole reel. Theres no need to terminate it or connect it to
anything for now, if its there then future uses are all go.
If you dont, you miss the window of opportunity, all those uses are
either closed off, or would require a great deal more expense to cable
for.
NT
Andy Hall
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 20:18:13 UTC, David Hansen
> <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:19:25 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
>> <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote this:-
>>
>>> And Yes we do have a wireless access point for visitors!....
>>
>> Their laptops presumably have little sockets, into which network
>> cables can be plugged.
>>
>> Personally, a visitor can use the little sockets I have provided in
>> the bedrooms or living room. There are no little sockets in the
>> kitchen for anything, as that is for cooking in rather than playing
>> with toys and the amount of mess while cooking means that this is a
>> service to them:-)
>
> Oh, we do have a socket under the breakfast bar. Just in case one day we
> get an IPv6 Internet enabled toaster...
Do you have one near the cider as well?
.
> incompatibility of different vendors kit.
LOL
yah, you know /loads/ ;-)
Bob Eager
> On 5 Jan,
> "Dave Liquorice" <new...@howhill.com> wrote:
>
> > But at least modern boxes with an internal soil stacks have a
> > nice duct running from the roof space through all floors. B-)
>
> Modern? the internal soil stack was only in use (apart from high rise where
> there would also be fire issues) in the 1970s and 1980s.
My parents' house was built in 1967, and the whole estate has them. I
believe some regulation came in around then.
Bob Eager
?
garym999
up on.
Wireless has its place but the quoted network speeds for this stuff are
laughable. The physical throughput is dramatically lower so much so I'm
surprised that no one has taken the manufacturers to court. I have
wireless for occasional use, laptops, music steaming in the garden etc.
It still surprises me how many times I see CAT5e sockets next to
telephone sockets. CAT5e can carry almost all media types given the
right sorts of adaptors, HDMI, Telephones, RS232, Data, Environmental
monitoring etc. And because CAT5e has been in the commercial sector for
years the adaptors are relatively cheap. Points adequately provisioned
will provide a flexible communications infrastructure for years to
come.
I would argue that fibre is not the way to go. The cost of installation
and correct termination coupled with the cost of the media converters
rule it out. It does make a fantastic backbone so it will appear more
and more as the main feed into the house. Potentially fibre can support
much higher data speeds but due to the costs data cable often catches
up shortly after.
If it were a new build then flooding the property with CT100 coax for
the RF and CAT5e for data is very cost effective. An alternative is
something like this:-
http://www.singlepointnetworks.co.uk/
This effectively combines the two cable technologies and provides a
range of adaptors to cater for nearly every media source. Also cuts
down on the wall acne. Not cheap though. If I were contiplating a new
build or referbishment I'd go for it.
And for the chap that was looking at HD media streaming:-
http://www.cyberselect.co.uk/product/1010 I have not have any
practical experience of the unit however.
David Hansen
<rd...@spamcop.net> wrote this:-
>> Modern? the internal soil stack was only in use (apart from high rise where
>> there would also be fire issues) in the 1970s and 1980s.
>
>My parents' house was built in 1967, and the whole estate has them. I
>believe some regulation came in around then.
In England and Wales it was a reaction to the winter of 1963, where
many two pipe drainage systems froze.
It was a faulty appreciation of the cause, which was largely due to
modifying the two pipe system to cope with upstairs bathrooms rather
than external pipes as such. Provided the system is properly
designed and used water in an external pipe is most unlikely to
freeze during the short time it is in the pipe. However, that does
not mean external pipes are desirable. Internal ones are easier to
work on and don't spoil the external appearance of a building.
Andrew Gabriel
"Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> writes:
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 00:51:19 UTC, <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Modern? the internal soil stack was only in use (apart from high rise where
>> there would also be fire issues) in the 1970s and 1980s.
>
> My parents' house was built in 1967, and the whole estate has them. I
> believe some regulation came in around then.
Legislation came in resulting from the cold winter of 1962
when lots of external cast iron soil stacks froze and shattered.
It was repealled after plastic soil stacks became commonplace,
but many architects still put them inside the building as they
are not considered very pretty on the outside.
--
Andrew Gabriel
John Rumm
The incompatibility is usually at a more subtle level than at the
MAC/LLC level. Andy touched on one of the most irritating examples in
his reply, and this is the issue of lame configuration software. Many
times you may have kit that talks at the physical level, but you are
unable to specify shared security settings to allow them to work, simply
because one configuration utility insists on a key being specified in
hex, and the other requires a textual key that it will then hash to form
a key. Needless to say they don't all use the same hash functions so
there is no ready way to convert one to the other.
Driver incompatibility is another problem. I lose count of the number of
times I have found WiFi NICs that in theory work over a number of OS
platforms only to find said compatibility is illusury when you actually
try to install them. With machine lockups or drivers that simply fail to
load at startup etc.
T i m
wrote:
>Where a physical card has to be installed in
>a PC or equivalent, there are
> the usual possible issues with drivers, interrupt conflicts
"interrupt conflicts", now those were the days ;-)
Handy though I was with jumpers, links and dip switches the advent of
real PnP (after the interim 'plug and pray') did away with much of
what made many of us 'different' for any other would be PC builder,
that and understanding the difference between, conventional, upper,
high, extended, expanded memory of course ;-)
"Hmm, now I can't put that Adaptec 1542B on IRQ5 and DMA3 as that will
conflict with ... "
All the best ...
T i m
The Natural Philosopher
> . wrote:
>
>> John Rumm wrote:
>>
>>
>>> incompatibility of different vendors kit.
>>
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> yah, you know /loads/ ;-)
>
> The incompatibility is usually at a more subtle level than at the
> MAC/LLC level. Andy touched on one of the most irritating examples in
> his reply, and this is the issue of lame configuration software. Many
> times you may have kit that talks at the physical level, but you are
> unable to specify shared security settings to allow them to work, simply
> because one configuration utility insists on a key being specified in
> hex, and the other requires a textual key that it will then hash to form
> a key. Needless to say they don't all use the same hash functions so
> there is no ready way to convert one to the other.
>
> Driver incompatibility is another problem. I lose count of the number of
> times I have found WiFi NICs that in theory work over a number of OS
> platforms only to find said compatibility is illusury when you actually
> try to install them. With machine lockups or drivers that simply fail to
> load at startup etc.
>
that work ...I had an issue with a mission critical website not being
accessible..their support finally said 'upgrade your router firmware'
I didn't believe it would work, but after rebooting the router, things
came back, so I grudgingly did as requested..it fixed it. Apparently the
NAT algorithms were faulty and the translation was timing out or
somesuch, so that return packets were forever discarded. Nice to know
that an 8 year old router could be upgraded to be only 4 years old
firmware wise :-)
As an IT professional for many years, I have an absolute aversion to the
latest and greatest. Its always bug ridden shite. Let someone ELSE have
the problems of fixing it..how many times have I been out to 'fix';
systems that have just been 'upgraded'..for no other reason than someone
thought it would make a perfectly good system somehow 'better' I ONLY
upgrade when there is something the new system will do that I really
need, and the old system simply won't.
Buying 5 year old technology generally means its cheap, reliable and
stable, and probably has about ten years of life left in it. Just about
every cabled installation I have been involved with in the last 5 years
worked first time and stayed that way. I would say that 50% of the
wireless ones have NOT, for a variety of reasons. In time I am sure they
will get much much better. But right now I am not interested.
We moved away from 10base5, because it was unreliable..10baseT was
wonderful. OK you need a HUB which was expensive., but the cable was
cheaper, the connectors were cheaper, and one bloody PC didn't bring a
whole office to a halt..
And its still more than good enough for most things.
No modern phone system gives me anything I really need beyond what a
1980 style analogue PABX can do either, in many instances.
So much is innovation for the sake of it. I don't actually WANT to take
pictures on my phone, or receive e-mails on it. Or take the phone into
the bog so I can chat to some goofy teenager about my sex-life. When I
leave this computer its because I don't WANT to get e-mails..how much of
all this stuff would people actually trade for a simjple system, with no
bells and whistles, that simply and reliably did the very few basic
things that they actually needed?
How much time did I spend the other night, vainly trying to get rd of
whatever random selection of keystrokes suddenly made every correction
to what I was writing come out in red strikethrough? About 30 minutes of
WASTED TIME.
Or take my new mouse. All I wanted was one that didn't get clogged up
with cat fluff and cigarette ash.I thought 'hey, optical will do that'
and so it did..BUT its now got two buttons on the side, plus a trackball
that rolls AND clicks and when I grab it too hard editing a web input,
it suddenly launches me back to a previous screen..and whenever I
highlight text and move too the keyboard to edit a word, it slips and I
end up editing three lines. ARGGH! I HATE INNOVATION. HOW CAN I TURN ALL
THIS SHITE OFF. I JUST want a mouse that moves a cursor, thats ALL.
.
> . wrote:
>
>> John Rumm wrote:
>>
>>
>>> incompatibility of different vendors kit.
>>
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> yah, you know /loads/ ;-)
>
> The incompatibility is usually at a more subtle level than at the
> MAC/LLC level. Andy touched on one of the most irritating examples in
> his reply, and this is the issue of lame configuration software. Many
> times you may have kit that talks at the physical level, but you are
> unable to specify shared security settings to allow them to work, simply
> because one configuration utility insists on a key being specified in
> hex, and the other requires a textual key that it will then hash to form
> a key. Needless to say they don't all use the same hash functions so
> there is no ready way to convert one to the other.
all of which can be avoided by doing proper research beforehand and
RTFM/STFW once the correct purchase has been made.
> Driver incompatibility is another problem. I lose count of the number of
> times I have found WiFi NICs that in theory work over a number of OS
> platforms only to find said compatibility is illusury when you actually
> try to install them. With machine lockups or drivers that simply fail to
> load at startup etc.
you must be unlucky, I've only had a few and that's with obscure floppy
firewall type stuff on old hardware and there was usually a workaround.
everything you've pointed out still shouldn't put someone off using wi-fi.
Andy Hall
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 06:41:32 UTC, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-01-05 20:37:48 +0000, "Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> said:
>
>>> Oh, we do have a socket under the breakfast bar. Just in case one day we
>>> get an IPv6 Internet enabled toaster...
>>
>> Do you have one near the cider as well?
>
> ?
CIDR...
Andy Hall
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:56:50 +0000, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Where a physical card has to be installed in a PC or equivalent, there are
>> the usual possible issues with drivers, interrupt conflicts
>
> "interrupt conflicts", now those were the days ;-)
They still are. Even now there are cases where some devices will happily
share an interrupt with some drivers on some operating systems but
others won't.
>
> Handy though I was with jumpers, links and dip switches the advent of
> real PnP (after the interim 'plug and pray') did away with much of
> what made many of us 'different' for any other would be PC builder,
> that and understanding the difference between, conventional, upper,
> high, extended, expanded memory of course ;-)
>
> "Hmm, now I can't put that Adaptec 1542B on IRQ5 and DMA3 as that will
> conflict with ... "
Yes, although PnP still really isn't a panacea.
Bob Eager
(groan)
Andy Hall
> John Rumm wrote:
>> . wrote:
>>
>>> John Rumm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> incompatibility of different vendors kit.
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> yah, you know /loads/ ;-)
>>
>> The incompatibility is usually at a more subtle level than at the
>> MAC/LLC level. Andy touched on one of the most irritating examples in
>> his reply, and this is the issue of lame configuration software. Many
>> times you may have kit that talks at the physical level, but you are
>> unable to specify shared security settings to allow them to work, simply
>> because one configuration utility insists on a key being specified in
>> hex, and the other requires a textual key that it will then hash to form
>> a key. Needless to say they don't all use the same hash functions so
>> there is no ready way to convert one to the other.
>
> all of which can be avoided by doing proper research beforehand and
> RTFM/STFW once the correct purchase has been made.
That assumes that the Friendly Manual describes the functionality
correctly or at all.
Especially in the case of entry level Wifi products for the consumer
market, the documentation
is appalling. I imagine that this is for a few reasons:
- an assumption on the part of the vendor that the customer won't
understand the technical detail
anyway so why bother
- why bother because the product will have a short lifetime
- nobody likes writing manuals
- not having people with the ability to write anything beyond a cut and
paste from the product config
screens.
I recently bought a Linksys managed gigabit switch. It is quite well
featured, but the documentation is appalling.
Specifically in the area of VLAN configuration, the information is
quite sparse and requires an email to their tech support for
clarification.
Many of the configuration setups for these types of product including
wireless and other home routers are web based. Nothing wrong with
that except that behaviour is not consistent among different web
browsers and versions thereof. I have had cases of products where it
is impossible to do the entire set up using one browser and where two
different ones have been needed in order to complete the set up.
Probably this has to do with java, active X and so on, but this is
hopeless for something that is meant to be an out of the box simple set
up product.
>
>> Driver incompatibility is another problem. I lose count of the number of
>> times I have found WiFi NICs that in theory work over a number of OS
>> platforms only to find said compatibility is illusury when you actually
>> try to install them. With machine lockups or drivers that simply fail to
>> load at startup etc.
>
> you must be unlucky, I've only had a few and that's with obscure floppy
> firewall type stuff on old hardware and there was usually a workaround.
All of that assumes that you know what you are doing, know where to look
for information and when things are broken having a reasonable idea how to
go about troubleshooting.
>
> everything you've pointed out still shouldn't put someone off using wi-fi.
No, and some of the issues such as configuration, drivers and so on can
arise with wired equipment also.
Wifi adds additional problems of security settings and RF behaviour
into the mix.
Admittedly there are product improvements in some areas, but there is
still a lot of crap
on the market. Vendors are still not taking enough care over
firmware and documentation
and are too focussed on selling based on claimed speed rather than what
it really is and on
product reliability, supportability and ease of use.
Part of the blame for this can be laid at the door of the manufacturers
because of their perceived
need to bring out something apparently but not really new every few
months; while the rest is on
the ever decreasing market pricing and margins. Both reduce the
ability and interest to produce
properly reliable and supported products.
Andy Hall
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:36:47 UTC, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-01-06 10:47:15 +0000, "Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> said:
>>
>>> On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 06:41:32 UTC, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-01-05 20:37:48 +0000, "Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> said:
>>>
>>>>> Oh, we do have a socket under the breakfast bar. Just in case one day we
>>>>> get an IPv6 Internet enabled toaster...
>>>>
>>>> Do you have one near the cider as well?
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> CIDR...
>
> (groan)
Thought you'd have got that one. IPv4 vs. IPv6 address spaces etc.
I can remember going to a presentation by Jon Postel where he said that
he couldn't ever see a reason why more than 32 bit IP addresses would ever
be needed.
Andy Hall
>
> that should be formatted, de personalised (I's and Yous') and added to
> the DIY wiki as it sums everything up very nicely indeed.
I'll see what I can do, although will need to teach myself about Wiki editing,
not having really done that before.
Perhaps someone has a pointer on where to look for info. on that?
T i m
wrote:
>On 2007-01-06 12:48:53 +0000, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> said:
>
>> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:56:50 +0000, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Where a physical card has to be installed in a PC or equivalent, there are
>>> the usual possible issues with drivers, interrupt conflicts
>>
>> "interrupt conflicts", now those were the days ;-)
>
>They still are. Even now there are cases where some devices will happily
>share an interrupt with some drivers on some operating systems but
>others won't.
Well of course, but I would offer the instances are still rare
compared with the 'requirement' to actually set resources as we had to
in the olden days? ie, I can't remember having any real / hard
'conflicts' within the last ~50 PC's I've built over the last ~7 years
(just lucky maybe)? ;-)
>
>
>>
>> Handy though I was with jumpers, links and dip switches the advent of
>> real PnP (after the interim 'plug and pray') did away with much of
>> what made many of us 'different' for any other would be PC builder,
>> that and understanding the difference between, conventional, upper,
>> high, extended, expanded memory of course ;-)
>>
>> "Hmm, now I can't put that Adaptec 1542B on IRQ5 and DMA3 as that will
>> conflict with ... "
>
>Yes, although PnP still really isn't a panacea.
Indeed. But what used to be the issue of 'is IRQX free' is now 'can we
still get that type of memory' or 'have you tried this weeks driver'
.. or 'what on earth is that connector for!?' ;-)
All the best ..
T i m
Bob Eager
> On 2007-01-06 14:54:23 +0000, "Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> said:
>
> > On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:36:47 UTC, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-01-06 10:47:15 +0000, "Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> said:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 06:41:32 UTC, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2007-01-05 20:37:48 +0000, "Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> said:
> >>>
> >>>>> Oh, we do have a socket under the breakfast bar. Just in case one day we
> >>>>> get an IPv6 Internet enabled toaster...
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you have one near the cider as well?
> >>>
> >>> ?
> >>
> >> CIDR...
> >
> > (groan)
>
> Thought you'd have got that one. IPv4 vs. IPv6 address spaces etc.
Well, I did, once you'd pointed out the bad pun...!
> I can remember going to a presentation by Jon Postel where he said that
> he couldn't ever see a reason why more than 32 bit IP addresses would ever
> be needed.
Yes, I heard he'd said that...but from a mutual frind of Postel's and
mine (who also wrote a number of RFCs). He wrote the 'real' RFC 666
(whose number is not at all significant).
The Natural Philosopher
blocks of addresses from large companies back to RIPE at al..
Bob Eager
> > I can remember going to a presentation by Jon Postel where he said that
> > he couldn't ever see a reason why more than 32 bit IP addresses would ever
> > be needed.
> >
> And in fact, it transpires that they aren't...as NAT has released HUGE
> blocks of addresses from large companies back to RIPE at al..
My employer still have their original /16....!
Ron Lowe
>>
>> I can remember going to a presentation by Jon Postel where he said that
>> he couldn't ever see a reason why more than 32 bit IP addresses would
>> ever
>> be needed.
>>
>>
> And in fact, it transpires that they aren't...as NAT has released HUGE
> blocks of addresses from large companies back to RIPE at al..
However, that brings a host (!) of issues of its own, with the NAT breaking
end-to-end connectivity. NAT is an OK stopgap but makes some things
difficult and others impossible.
IPv6 will restore end-to-end connectivity, with everyone able to use as many
routable addresses as they need. I just wish we'd get on with it a bit
quicker.
--
Ron ( Natively IPv6 enabled here ).
Matt Helliwell
> In message <176uZD2KcidF-p...@rikki.tavi.co.uk>, Bob Eager
> <rd...@spamcop.net> writes
>> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:32:53 UTC, Harry Bloomfield
>> <harry.m1...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I have wired up the entire house for both too,
>>
>> I rewired the whole house for everything,
>>
> Just before I re-carpeted the house, I managed to lay a whole reel of
> CAT5 (1000 feet) under the floorboards,
Wish I'd thought of that when I was decorating. Wireless doesn't work
too well in my house so I ended up with homeplug jobbies. No doubt there
are loads of downsides to them but at least they got the new xbox 360
online without any effort on my part.
--
Matt Helliwell
www.helliwell.me.uk
Ron Lowe
> Just before I re-carpeted the house, I managed to lay a whole reel of
> more or less everywhere to everywhere else - £10 well spent, I think
>
If you are going to lay cat5, I'd not lay it "from more or less everywhere
to everywhere else ". I'd lay it from "more or less everywhere" back to
one central point.
UTP networking is essentially a star architecture, not a matrix.
At the central point, punch it down onto a patch panel, and then you can
hook the various ports up to the switch as required with short patch cables.
I prefer to use dual outlets at each point, typically 2 or more points per
room. Wherever I need 1 network port, I tend to find that I usually need
another occasionally for some reason. I don't have enough switch ports to
have them all live at any one time, but I can use the patch panel to hook up
the ports I do need. It also lets me use a bank of PoE injectors to enable
PoE on the ports I use for the Cisco IP phones.
The central point does not need to be a dedicated comms cabinet or room, A
void space behind a wardrobe or similar will do, if necessary...
--
Ron
David Hansen
<ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS> wrote this:-
>The central point does not need to be a dedicated comms cabinet or room, A
>void space behind a wardrobe or similar will do, if necessary...
Indeed. The space in the corner of a built-in cupboard does very
nicely in my house.
Osprey
>
> > What is the likelihood of your house catching fire, the dect phone
> > failing as a result of the fire and the local cell also failing all at
> > exactly the same time as you need to ring the fire brigade?
> >
> A reasonably local lightning strike could cause all three.
>
In event of major disaster Mobile Network would be turned off to all
except Emergency Services SIMS ... so if something does go wrong, don't
expect your mobile to work.
Osprey
> >
> > Modern? the internal soil stack was only in use (apart from high rise where
> > there would also be fire issues) in the 1970s and 1980s.
>
I have new Selfbuild and this has 2 internal stacks and no external
stacks.
There was a Bld Reg change in early 70's which forced builders to put
stacks inside (knee jerk reaction to a severe winter) .... this did not
last long, and you can put them in or out ... planning permitting.
Dave Liquorice
> Modern? the internal soil stack was only in use (apart from high rise
> where there would also be fire issues) in the 1970s and 1980s.
Precisely modern... Have external stacks come back? Can't say I pay much
attention to modern pocket handkerchief and rabbit hutch estate housing.
In one of the cold winters in the early 80's some of the external waste
pipe work at my rented Bristol flat froze up, simple reason dripping tap.
--
Cheers new...@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
raden
<ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS@?.?.invalid> writes
>
>> Just before I re-carpeted the house, I managed to lay a whole reel of
>> CAT5 (1000 feet) under the floorboards, so there are multiple cables
>>from more or less everywhere to everywhere else - £10 well spent, I
>>think
>>
>
>If you are going to lay cat5, I'd not lay it "from more or less
>everywhere to everywhere else ". I'd lay it from "more or less
>everywhere" back to one central point.
>
>UTP networking is essentially a star architecture, not a matrix.
>
I ended up laying it everywhere just to use it up
Once you have 10 cables from modem to router and from modem to main
computer, router to main computer and router to upstairs points, you're
just using up cable to allow for every contingency
--
geoff
Roly
> Hi all
>
> Just a general enquiry really.
> Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
> installation of network and phone cabling.
> This is obviously at odds to the current hype re: wireless
> networking/broadband etc.
> I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
> beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.
>
> Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
> the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?
I've got a wireless network and then installed a cable network
afterwards. The wireless one is brilliant and ideal for a laptop, but a
cable is so much faster, but that's not all. It's much more versatile
too.
If you've got equipment that works in one fixed position, then cable is
usually the answer, mobile stuff obviously needs wireless.
My wife mentioned that she wanted to be able to hear the HiFi when she
was working in our dining room and it was a doddle to distribute the
audio ( and video too ) over a CAT5 line that was already there. I'm now
thinking of adding more CAT5 lines to each room as I can see so many
uses for them.
John Rumm
>>The incompatibility is usually at a more subtle level than at the
>>MAC/LLC level. Andy touched on one of the most irritating examples in
>>his reply, and this is the issue of lame configuration software. Many
>>times you may have kit that talks at the physical level, but you are
>>unable to specify shared security settings to allow them to work, simply
>>because one configuration utility insists on a key being specified in
>>hex, and the other requires a textual key that it will then hash to form
>>a key. Needless to say they don't all use the same hash functions so
>>there is no ready way to convert one to the other.
>
>
> all of which can be avoided by doing proper research beforehand and
> RTFM/STFW once the correct purchase has been made.
You seem to be assuming that one gets to choose and specify the kit. In
the real world many times the job is to "make that lot work" where the
equipment has already been bought on price or advertising hype by people
who have not done any research.
If the kit is all from one maker then that can make it easier, but there
are times you can not get all the capabilities you need in all off the
the different system components from one maker (and whos parts are all
in stock concurrently with your suppliers)
When you are specifying and purchasing the kit then it falls to you to
do the research. Here you run into another problem of getting the
information required. It is frustrating how many vendors will omit
information about how their configuration software works, and the key
entry formats which are supported.
> you must be unlucky, I've only had a few and that's with obscure floppy
> firewall type stuff on old hardware and there was usually a workaround.
Maybe you are lucky, or don't do much of this sort of stuff.
> everything you've pointed out still shouldn't put someone off using wi-fi.
I was not trying to put anyone off WiFi at all. I use it myself. However
it has its unique limitations and problems, and in some cases is less
suitable for the task than wired components. Hence back to the original
question as to whether cable is still justified for phone and data
systems. The answer is unarguably yes in some cases. In others you will
be able to avoid it with wireless solutions.
.
<snip>
> You seem to be assuming that one gets to choose and specify the kit.
that's quite an assumption you've made there.
> In the real world many times the job is to "make that lot work" where the
> equipment has already been bought on price or advertising hype by people
> who have not done any research.
yes, like in the 'real world' 2 DSL installs I've done this year (so far)
both have signed up to talktalk from carphone warehouse (?) and neither
of them have thought about a router firewall despite me telling them both
that they would need one and that talktalk were rubbish.
I've got another install to do next week (quick £50)
<snip>
> Maybe you are lucky, or don't do much of this sort of stuff.
these days ? not as much as I used to do (daily, for several years) but
enough to realise that pointing out the negatives of a technology doesn't
negate the benefits of it. but I've never had any problems in searching out
the positive elements of technology or finding workarounds for any issues
I might encounter. YMMWV
John Rumm
>>You seem to be assuming that one gets to choose and specify the kit.
>
>
> that's quite an assumption you've made there.
Well hardly, you did say "all of which can be avoided by doing proper
research beforehand and RTFM/STFW once the correct purchase has been
made.", which does seem to presuppose that one gets a look in beforehand.
> both have signed up to talktalk from carphone warehouse (?) and neither
> of them have thought about a router firewall despite me telling them both
> that they would need one and that talktalk were rubbish.
I find you can really upset them by pointing out "but it is free!"[1]
when they are going through the hell of trying to get TalkTalk to
provide any service at all, or trying to get a MAC code out of them when
they can't ;-)
[1] The phrase that I often hear in response to my warnings about the
likely problems... still you get what you pay for.
> these days ? not as much as I used to do (daily, for several years) but
> enough to realise that pointing out the negatives of a technology doesn't
> negate the benefits of it.
Indeed it does not. I don't think I was pointing out just the negatives,
more highlighting the areas in which wired solutions have advantages.