Does having multiple RJ45 jacks degrade the Internet signal a lot?

[Chuck Banshee]

This is my first time installing cat5 cable in my house and I am unsure
how to connect to RJ45 jacks that I need to put in the wall.

I've installed a WISP antenna 75 feet from the house & will be routing
the outdoor cat5 cable into the middle of the house (another 25 or so
feet) - but I have a few 'design' questions I'd like to ask those more
experienced than I am.

Pictured here is what I have in the wall in the middle of the house:
http://picturepush.com/public/7212874
or
www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7212874/1024/Anonymous/cat5-questions.gif

I'm not sure if it's best to route the wire all the way from the antenna
to the middle of the house (about 75 feet to the house and another 25 or
30 feet zig-zagging to the crawl space and then up to the newly drilled
hole at the wall).

I'm going to put a wall plate at the wall in the middle of the house; but
should I also put a wall plate where the wire enters the house?

Does breaking the line into sections degrade the signal?

If I do put a wall plate at the entrance to the house, I'll likely put
the POE (power over ethernet) at the wall inside the house (otherwise it
will go in the middle of the house next to the WRT54G router).

When I put a wall plate in the middle of the house, would you add a
second female jack (just in case for future use?). Or does that also
degrade the signal?

In summary, I'm not sure if I should strive to keep the line intact and
how I should terminate it.

Any advice?

[miso]

On 12/24/2011 12:04 AM, Chuck Banshee wrote:
> This is my first time installing cat5 cable in my house and I am unsure
> how to connect to RJ45 jacks that I need to put in the wall.
>

> I've installed a WISP antenna 75 feet from the house& will be routing

> the outdoor cat5 cable into the middle of the house (another 25 or so
> feet) - but I have a few 'design' questions I'd like to ask those more
> experienced than I am.
>
> Pictured here is what I have in the wall in the middle of the house:
> http://picturepush.com/public/7212874
> or
> www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7212874/1024/Anonymous/cat5-questions.gif
>
> I'm not sure if it's best to route the wire all the way from the antenna
> to the middle of the house (about 75 feet to the house and another 25 or
> 30 feet zig-zagging to the crawl space and then up to the newly drilled
> hole at the wall).
>
> I'm going to put a wall plate at the wall in the middle of the house; but
> should I also put a wall plate where the wire enters the house?
>
> Does breaking the line into sections degrade the signal?
>
> If I do put a wall plate at the entrance to the house, I'll likely put
> the POE (power over ethernet) at the wall inside the house (otherwise it
> will go in the middle of the house next to the WRT54G router).
>
> When I put a wall plate in the middle of the house, would you add a
> second female jack (just in case for future use?). Or does that also
> degrade the signal?
>
> In summary, I'm not sure if I should strive to keep the line intact and
> how I should terminate it.
>
> Any advice?

I'm a bit confused here. It should be one device per line, so what are
you paralleling?

I'd put the router someplace like a closet in the middle of the house
and run wires to each room as needed. There are "structured" wiring bays
if you want to get fancy, rather than have wires dangling in the closet.


Kind of old school here. I think today you would just wire data. Forget
the RF unless you insist on cable.
> http://www.swhowto.com/


> http://www.computercablestore.com/12_Port_CAT5e_Wall_Mount__PID48600.aspx

I've only see these in rack mounts, i.e. office environments. Wall
mounts is what would make more sense for a house.

I'd put in the highest speed wire and patch you can afford. Also, there
are issues with how you radius the wire. I don't think this is rocket
science, but you do need to be scientific about it.

Your AM radio may hear these wires sing, but streaming radios are the
way to go. I haven't used a broadcast radio other than shortwave in 4 or
5 years.

There are shielded cables to reduce the EMI. Probably OK for a short
distance. There are ground mismatch issues with shielded cables.

Cat 6 is commonplace. Cat 7 is out there, though I don't recall seeing
it in stores. A twisted pair guru told me (and I have no way to verify
this) that once a company can do cat X, eventually everything the sell
is Cat X, even if it is labeled Cat (X-1). Once you have the twist
(balance) down, you eventually make everything to that grade as
machinery gets fixed.

Some of the cat 7 wire has teflon insulation. I'd certainly rest easier
at night knowing the wires in the wall are good for high temperature.

Incidentally I have a very old Zircon stud finder. They called it the
video sensor. It works well. But your magnet trick looks good to me.
> http://www.zircon.com/discontinued/scanning_videoscanner.html

This device even found a shallow buried pipe that some rancher gypsy
installed.

[mike]

Your description is somewhat vague, but I can give you some general
guidelines.
Assuming you're running standard 802.11 ethernet, it makes some difference
whether you're running 10Mb, 100Mb, or gigabit ethernet.
Faster requires more care.

In general, you can have exactly one device at either end of the wire.
You can have plugs and sockets in the wire, but only one device on
either end....not in the middle...at the ends of the wire.
You cannot tap a device into the middle of a wire. Devices have to be
on the ENDs of the wires. Doesn't matter if the unused end of the wire
is disconnected...the extra wire can't be there.

You can have two sockets and a jumper wire. Remove the jumper to use
the connector in the middle of the run, but that disconnects the rest of
your system.

If one of those devices is a router, you can use one router port to continue
the run while you use another router port to "tap" the signal.

What do you mean by "terminate"?
You don't "terminate" the line as in impedance matching. That's done
inside the devices you connect to the END of the wire run.
If, by "terminate" you mean, do I solder it or use screw terminals, that's
a different issue. Should be instructions with the socket you use.

[Stephen]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:04:38 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
<chuckb...@private.com> wrote:

>This is my first time installing cat5 cable in my house and I am unsure
>how to connect to RJ45 jacks that I need to put in the wall.
>
>I've installed a WISP antenna 75 feet from the house & will be routing
>the outdoor cat5 cable into the middle of the house (another 25 or so
>feet) - but I have a few 'design' questions I'd like to ask those more
>experienced than I am.

Cat5 is designed for 100m reach, within an office environment.

standard setup is 10m total of "patch" leads at each end, with a fixed
"home run" cable between them.

Exactly what you use over the Cat5 dictates how sensitive the sugnals
are to pushing the boundaries
- but Cat5 is designed to have some room for long term degradation.

Various setups may increase the number of RJ-45 connectors - a power
over Ethernet power injector within a run for example.

>
>Pictured here is what I have in the wall in the middle of the house:
>http://picturepush.com/public/7212874
>or
>www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7212874/1024/Anonymous/cat5-questions.gif
>
>I'm not sure if it's best to route the wire all the way from the antenna
>to the middle of the house (about 75 feet to the house and another 25 or
>30 feet zig-zagging to the crawl space and then up to the newly drilled
>hole at the wall).
>
>I'm going to put a wall plate at the wall in the middle of the house; but
>should I also put a wall plate where the wire enters the house?
>
>Does breaking the line into sections degrade the signal?

yes - but exactly how much depends on the device - find some cabling
instructions on how to do it properly, but in general maintain the
"twists" in each pair as much as feasible.

I think the punchdown style connections are easiest to do, and allow
the twists to within a few mm of the connector.

>
>If I do put a wall plate at the entrance to the house, I'll likely put
>the POE (power over ethernet) at the wall inside the house (otherwise it
>will go in the middle of the house next to the WRT54G router).
>
>When I put a wall plate in the middle of the house, would you add a
>second female jack (just in case for future use?). Or does that also
>degrade the signal?
>

Golden rule is treat this as flood wiring
- put more cables in parallel than you think you will ever need,
since cable is cheap and running wires in is disruptive.

Dont add extra jack points on an individual run unless you need to.

PoE is designed to work at 100m, so it doesnt sound like placement
will matter much.

>In summary, I'm not sure if I should strive to keep the line intact and
>how I should terminate it.
>
>Any advice?

--
Regards

stephe...@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:04:38 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
<chuckb...@private.com> wrote:

The short answer is yes, you should keep the segment in one piece if
at all [possible. Each connection can degrade the signal.

If you want to split the cable where it enters the building best
practice would be to install an active switch (if you are running
ethernet) at the entrance - you can go 285 feet (some say 100 meters,
but that's stretching it) on both sides of the switch, and up to 4
switches in "series"

Terminate with cat5 or cat5e spec RJ45 jacks or plugs. (plug on end of
cable goung ito and out of switch, jack in wall)

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 00:41:58 -0800, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>
>Cat 6 is commonplace. Cat 7 is out there, though I don't recall seeing
>it in stores. A twisted pair guru told me (and I have no way to verify
>this) that once a company can do cat X, eventually everything the sell
>is Cat X, even if it is labeled Cat (X-1). Once you have the twist
>(balance) down, you eventually make everything to that grade as
>machinery gets fixed.

Cat 5 or 6 cannot be made on the same machinery as cat7 because cat7
uses individually shielded wires, twiisted together into a sheilded
cable. REALLY nasty stuff to work with. And 3 standards - cat7, cat7a
and cat7f.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:06:14 +0000, Stephen
<stephe...@xyzworld.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:04:38 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
><chuckb...@private.com> wrote:
>
>>This is my first time installing cat5 cable in my house and I am unsure
>>how to connect to RJ45 jacks that I need to put in the wall.
>>
>>I've installed a WISP antenna 75 feet from the house & will be routing
>>the outdoor cat5 cable into the middle of the house (another 25 or so
>>feet) - but I have a few 'design' questions I'd like to ask those more
>>experienced than I am.
>
>Cat5 is designed for 100m reach, within an office environment.
>
>standard setup is 10m total of "patch" leads at each end, with a fixed
>"home run" cable between them.
>
>Exactly what you use over the Cat5 dictates how sensitive the sugnals
>are to pushing the boundaries
> - but Cat5 is designed to have some room for long term degradation.
>
>Various setups may increase the number of RJ-45 connectors - a power
>over Ethernet power injector within a run for example.
>>

Best practice would be to use a POE switch at the entry point - it
provides the POE and retransmits the data, breaking the network into 2
segments (both of which have the theoretical 75 or 100 meter length
capability)

[Justin Time]

"miso" <mi...@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:jd438j$1ra$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> I'm a bit confused here. It should be one device per line, so what are you
> paralleling?
>
> I'd put the router someplace like a closet in the middle of the house and
> run wires to each room as needed. There are "structured" wiring bays if
> you want to get fancy, rather than have wires dangling in the closet.
>
>

All computer and Internet devices are wireless and the rest of the
electronic technology is close behind, such as TVs. Centralize a wireless
router and forego wiring the house.

[tra...@optonline.net]

> >>Any advice?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It would seem to me the best thing to do would be
to run one line from the outside antenna direct to
a central distribution point in the house. At that
central point, you put the switch. Then any RJ45
jacks in the house are run to the central point.

But a lot depends on what it is he's intending to
do, the various uses, how easy it is to run cable,
etc. For at least some of the uses, wireless may
be a better option, as someone already pointed out.
No wire to run.
Wired to the various rooms/uses is still going to
provide more reliable connection and better data
rate. But if the WISP connection is the limiting
factor, having 1 gig ethernet inside the house
doesn't get you much, unless you;re moving
data between devices.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:04:38 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee

<chuckb...@private.com> wrote:

>This is my first time installing cat5 cable in my house and I am unsure
>how to connect to RJ45 jacks that I need to put in the wall.

The basic idea is to build a "star" (also known as home run).
Everything comes to a central location, where you locate a 10/100baseT
ethernet switch. You can add additional ethernet switches at any
endpoint that needs more than one connection (forming a "tree").

>I've installed a WISP antenna 75 feet from the house & will be routing
>the outdoor cat5 cable into the middle of the house (another 25 or so
>feet) -

Very vague. What manner of hardware are you installing? Most WISP
system use PoE to the radio/antenna on the roof, and ethernet to some
manner of power injector. From there, you run ethernet to a local
router, and then to the central ethernet switch. The router might be
built into your unspecified model WISP radio. Note that I said
"switch", not "hub". You do not want a hub.

Hopefully, you didn't run 75ft of coaxial cable between the radio and
the antenna. That's much too long. Cable losses at 2.4GHz are quite
high.

>Pictured here is what I have in the wall in the middle of the house:
>http://picturepush.com/public/7212874

My Zircon stud sensor sorta works. However, I cheat. I have photos
of what's inside my walls from before the drywall and paneling was
added.

While it's nice to have the outlet box attached to a stud, it's not
necessary. There are rework PVC device boxes, that attach to the
drywall.

RJ45 jacks do not cause loss. Un-connected jacks do not cause loss.
Unterminated cables do not cause loss. The catch is that you have to
install one cable for each RJ45 jack. Since CAT5e has 4 pairs of
wires, and ethernet uses only 2 pairs, you can split the cable pairs
and wire two jacks on the wall jacks, and attach two RJ45 plugs at the
other end of the cable. However, if you're using PoE on this segment,
you'll need all 4 pairs to the wall jack.

Since you're running CAT5 through the wall base plate, you'll need to
drill a large enough hole to accommodate the number of cables you
need. If you only want to run one cable, then perhaps adding an
ethernet switch near the wall plate might be easier.

>I'm not sure if it's best to route the wire all the way from the antenna
>to the middle of the house (about 75 feet to the house and another 25 or
>30 feet zig-zagging to the crawl space and then up to the newly drilled
>hole at the wall).

Hint:
a "wire" is a single length of insulated copper.
a "cable" is a collection of wires enclosed by a vinyl jacket.

Hopefully, this cable is CAT5e. It will need to run from the rooftop
mast, to the nearest convenient location that has AC power (for PoE).
That's usually also the location of the central ethernet switch.

>I'm going to put a wall plate at the wall in the middle of the house; but
>should I also put a wall plate where the wire enters the house?

No. Wall plates are NOT waterproof. You should use a proper cable
entry. For rooftops, that's a "rams head". For wall entry, cable
entry with a drip loop. There are some tricks involved (such as
slightly angling the hole in the wall upward so accumulated water
drips outward). Also, leave a service loop for anything that you
install in the wall. Talk to a DBS satellite dish installer for
clues.

>Does breaking the line into sections degrade the signal?

Nope, as long as there is an ethernet switch between each segment.
However, if you're talking about running multiple segments and just
splicing them together, that also works. I suggest you terminate each
end with an RJ45 plug, and use a coupler to make the connection. It's
a bit more complex, but much easier to troubleshoot when the kids,
puppy, or mice, chew up the cable.
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/260915346939>

>If I do put a wall plate at the entrance to the house, I'll likely put
>the POE (power over ethernet) at the wall inside the house (otherwise it
>will go in the middle of the house next to the WRT54G router).

Do NOT hide anything INSIDE the wall. One little spark or overheated
power device, and you'll have a fire in an inaccessible location.

>When I put a wall plate in the middle of the house, would you add a
>second female jack (just in case for future use?). Or does that also
>degrade the signal?

Yes. As long as the 2nd jack is on a separate CAT5e cable, there's no
deterioration in the signal. The problem is that there's NEVER enough
ethernet wall jacks. If you expect that you'll need one, then install
two. If you think you'll need two, then install four. 6 jacks is
about the limit. Extra cable is cheaper than the time to do it over
again.

There are also ethernet switches that will fit in the wall, but you
won't like the price:
<http://www.amazon.com/3CNJ220-CRM-4-Port-100Mbps-Ethernet-Switch/dp/B0001DHE0U>

>In summary, I'm not sure if I should strive to keep the line intact and
>how I should terminate it.
>
>Any advice?

I think you're over your head a little. Best to Google the internet
for CAT5 and ethernet installation instructions and examples. Also,
talk to a professional cable installer before you make a major
mistake. The danger is that if you have a house fire, and the fire
inspector finds non-code compliant creative wiring, you run the risk
of having your insurance company declare that you were the cause of
the fire.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[miso]

> All computer and Internet devices are wireless and the rest of the
> electronic technology is close behind, such as TVs. Centralize a wireless
> router and forego wiring the house.
>
>

I do wireless now, but given my druthers, I'd do it up all wired and put
a server/Drobo/whatever in that closet. New construction has structured
wiring as an add-on.

[miso]

> I think you're over your head a little. Best to Google the internet
> for CAT5 and ethernet installation instructions and examples. Also,
> talk to a professional cable installer before you make a major
> mistake. The danger is that if you have a house fire, and the fire
> inspector finds non-code compliant creative wiring, you run the risk
> of having your insurance company declare that you were the cause of
> the fire.
>

Is there any code for wire beneath 48V? I though the whole idea behind
low voltage wiring is that it is code free. Otherwise you would need an
electrician to wiring up a new phone outlet.

The trouble with networking experts is these are all the guys who were
run out of the alarm business when ADT and others started their free
installations. They became networking experts, home theater experts,
etc. Not that I blame them for finding new jobs where they can be self
employed, but quality is all over the map.

Don't get me wrong. Some of these networking guys are really sharp. I
use a local guy for auto parts that is a CNI. Trouble is it is more
profitable to sell parts on the net than compete with the rest of the
networking firms. I have a friend that does networking strictly for
commercial and municipal jobs, and survives pretty much by having a long
list of jobs well done. Nobody in city hall wants to be the guy that
hired the clown network company, and so they write the bids with enough
legal mumbo jumbo that few first timers want to compete.

[miso]

> Cat 5 or 6 cannot be made on the same machinery as cat7 because cat7
> uses individually shielded wires, twiisted together into a sheilded
> cable. REALLY nasty stuff to work with. And 3 standards - cat7, cat7a
> and cat7f.
>

OK. I was told that in the cat 5e era, with cat 6 coming online.

With electronics, sometimes items are truly different and sometimes they
are tested and selected for grade. If the construction is different,
they can't be the same obviously. If the components are selected for
grade, then often they sell "A" grade on the "B" grade line just to fill
orders. In the IC business, the procedure is known as "paint and remark".

Now if 7, 7a, and 7f use the same materials, then there is a chance at
some point they are the same quality.

[Jeff Liebermann]

I agree. Wireless should be used when other methods (CAT5 or fiber)
are not available. The reliability and speed of the connection is
well worth the effort running the wires or fiber. If speed is less of
an issue than convenience, consider using HomePlug or HomePNA.

For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
way structured wiring is done. Bundles of CAT5, fiber, station wire,
alarm wire, intercom wire, thermocouple wire, and coax cable are
available for those who fail to appreciate conduit. Actually, it's
not the usual PVC electrical conduit but rather "smurf tube" or HDPE
(high density polyethylene) pipe:
<http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=901909>
<http://store.cablesplususa.com/networking-infrastructure-premier-conduit-raceway.html>

However, if you enjoy dealing with interference from the neighbors,
municipal wi-fi, wireless security cameras, TIVO, wireless TV,
microwave ovens, etc, wireless is for you.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:41:38 -0800, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>Is there any code for wire beneath 48V?

Yep. It's called signaling or communications cable. Network wiring
and telco are covered as NEC article 800.
<http://ecmweb.com/nec/code-basics/electric_article_communications_circuits/>
The basic it is to keep the stuff away from power cables.

>I though the whole idea behind
>low voltage wiring is that it is code free. Otherwise you would need an
>electrician to wiring up a new phone outlet.

There's no such thing as code free. If the NFPA had its way, there
would be specifications for the toilet paper.

>The trouble with networking experts is these are all the guys who were
>run out of the alarm business when ADT and others started their free
>installations. They became networking experts, home theater experts,
>etc. Not that I blame them for finding new jobs where they can be self
>employed, but quality is all over the map.

Nope. Real cable experts are usually BICSI certified:
<https://www.bicsi.org/single.aspx?l=2464,4192,4194>
Note that BISCI also has a wireless designer certification:
<https://www.bicsi.org/double.aspx?l=2572&r=2574>
I'm tempted. Only $345... ouch.

However, I agree about the quality. I only got the jobs that no sane
and competent installer would accept. If I make a profit, I might
actually document my work or label a few things.

>Don't get me wrong. Some of these networking guys are really sharp. I
>use a local guy for auto parts that is a CNI. Trouble is it is more
>profitable to sell parts on the net than compete with the rest of the
>networking firms. I have a friend that does networking strictly for
>commercial and municipal jobs, and survives pretty much by having a long
>list of jobs well done. Nobody in city hall wants to be the guy that
>hired the clown network company, and so they write the bids with enough
>legal mumbo jumbo that few first timers want to compete.

Yep. However, the reason is different. The convoluted specs are
usually to avoid legal complications and to cover the customers ass
when the whole mess goes to litigation. I've been asked to carry
oversight insurance, with the customer as the sole beneficiary, just
in case they screwed up the job specifications. (Hint: I don't do
much wiring these daze).

[Justin Time]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:c1tcf7l6edfa6rfr9...@4ax.com...

>
> However, if you enjoy dealing with interference from the neighbors,
> municipal wi-fi, wireless security cameras, TIVO, wireless TV,
> microwave ovens, etc, wireless is for you.
>
>

I often hear/read about those rebuttals to wireless, but after many years of
using wireless, I have yet to have any major issues. In fact, I had several
machines connected. Some were wired and some wireless. I had more problems
with some of the wired than I did with wireless. It's not foolproof, but it
doesn't have the major interference problems you and many have stated.

[Oren]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:21:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
>walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
>way structured wiring is done.

You've mentioned the star topology twice now. I agree it is the best
way to build the wired network. If one segment goes down, the rest of
the network is still up. Easier to trouble shoot a single segment.

Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:48:06 -0500, "Justin Time" <M...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Well, what can I say? My experience has been quite the opposite. I
derive a fair part of my income from fixing wireless problems. Perhaps
I just see more wireless horror stories than you. Dunno.

It's not just the interference problems, some of which I itemized
above. There's also some rather strange wireless clients, buggy
wireless router firmware, compatibility issues, and just plain bad
design.

Here's an easy one, that I hear all to often. Customer has a wireless
PC laptop. He uses the laptop successfully on the office WLAN. He
slams the lid shut, putting the laptop into standby or hibernate. He
goes home, opens the lid, and the laptop resumes. One problem... he
can't connect. A bit of tinkering finds that the laptop still thinks
he's on the office WLAN, and is desperately looking for the office
wireless access point that's not there. If the IP address of the
office router and home router are the same, it's even more confusing
(ARP cache). The DHCP lease time hasn't expired yet, so the DHCP
client isn't going to break the RFC and initiate a premature DHCP
renewal. There are plenty of ways to fix this (IPCONFIG, reboot, turn
power on/off to the wireless card in the laptop), but it will usually
drive one into frustration mode the first time they see it. This
doesn't happen with a wired LAN.

Plenty of other ways to have wireless drive one nuts. I get a call
from a dentists office wondering if I could do something to make their
assorted wireless laptops work better. I arrive and find the outside
of the adjacent building festooned with wireless security cameras. As
long as they are running, Wi-Fi isn't working. I leave it to the
dentist to convince the neighbor to switch the cameras to wired.

Need more stories? Just ask.

However, you are correct that there are also plenty of wired issues.
I've had to deal with a few wiring and connector issues on network
hardware. Learning to crimp CAT5 into an RJ45 is fairly easy, but
does take some practice. I see far too many partial crimps and
creative wiring. Still, they're minor compared to the wireless
problems.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Yep. That's the ONLY way to do ethernet over twisted pair. Bus
topology is for 10base2 coax and POTS phones. Ring is for fiber or
token ring.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=ethernet+topology&tbm=isch>

>Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.

Not really. Ring topology is used for fiber because it offers
improved reliability. Break the ring at any point, and the data
simply goes around the long way until the break is fixed. Two breaks
just means a small section of the ring is inaccessible. The rest of
the ring still works. It really makes more sense over a large
distance, such as going around the entire SF Bay area, rather than
just around the house.

The problem with home networks and fiber rings is that there just
isn't any affordable hardware available to make it happen. It's also
not really necessary at home, unless you have kids, puppies, or rats
chewing on the cables and need improved uptime.

The reason I keep mentioning star topology is that many users are very
familiar with the common POTS (plain old telephone service) bus type
topology. Find the cable that's snaking through the walls, and just
tap in with the phone instrument. That's convenient, but doesn't work
with 10/100baseT ethernet. It DOES work with 10base2 coax cable
ethernet, but that's limited to 10Mbits/sec half-duplex. I just
wanted to make sure that the OP doesn't try to wire his house in the
style of the POTS phone.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:29:24 -0800, Oren <Or...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

Cannot run ring topology ethernet except on Co-ax.. AKA Slo-ax

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:02:09 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

You want to try the job I had last year. Moved an insurance agency
into a new build ing that had been pre-wired by the original tennant -
who went bankrupt - and the IT guys that had not been paid for the
server etc came in and lopped off all the cables 2 feet from the
ceiling. 78 cable runs - undocumented - and half wired to "A" spec and
half to "B". I ended up putting a switch rack above the door to the
former server room, terminating all those cables - then tracing them
back to their end-points, testing them, and re-wiring all of them that
ended up "crossed".

Then running "home runs" from the switch rack to the relocated server
room.

Then we added another kilometer of cable into a trough in the floor to
serve another 12 workstations.

Half of the cables for corporate network - the other half for VOIP
phone system (with POE).

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:15:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:29:24 -0800, Oren <Or...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:21:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
>>>walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
>>>way structured wiring is done.
>>
>>You've mentioned the star topology twice now. I agree it is the best
>>way to build the wired network. If one segment goes down, the rest of
>>the network is still up. Easier to trouble shoot a single segment.
>
>Yep. That's the ONLY way to do ethernet over twisted pair. Bus
>topology is for 10base2 coax and POTS phones. Ring is for fiber or
>token ring.
><https://www.google.com/search?q=ethernet+topology&tbm=isch>
>
>>Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.
>
>Not really. Ring topology is used for fiber because it offers
>improved reliability. Break the ring at any point, and the data
>simply goes around the long way until the break is fixed. Two breaks
>just means a small section of the ring is inaccessible. The rest of
>the ring still works. It really makes more sense over a large
>distance, such as going around the entire SF Bay area, rather than
>just around the house.

"Rings" in reality, aren't. They're double "stars", with a pair of channels,
one each direction from a central hub to the points of the star. This is done
for serviceability. The network can be managed from a central point. The
original Token Ring was a true ring but it was quickly found that the network
got unmanageable. In fact, Token Ring over CAT-5 isn't uncommon at all (if
you can say Token Ring isn't "uncommon" anymore ;-).

>The problem with home networks and fiber rings is that there just
>isn't any affordable hardware available to make it happen. It's also
>not really necessary at home, unless you have kids, puppies, or rats
>chewing on the cables and need improved uptime.
>
>The reason I keep mentioning star topology is that many users are very
>familiar with the common POTS (plain old telephone service) bus type
>topology. Find the cable that's snaking through the walls, and just
>tap in with the phone instrument. That's convenient, but doesn't work
>with 10/100baseT ethernet. It DOES work with 10base2 coax cable
>ethernet, but that's limited to 10Mbits/sec half-duplex. I just
>wanted to make sure that the OP doesn't try to wire his house in the
>style of the POTS phone.

Most POTS is wired in a star, today. It's easier in new construction, to put
all the communications stuff together. Of course telephones don't care what
the wire looks like. If it made it the five miles from the CO, you could have
barbed wire in the house and it would work. ;-)

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 00:41:58 -0800, miso wrote:
> I'm a bit confused here. It should be one device per line, so what are
> you paralleling?

I think I'm confused too so that's why it's hard to help me.

Mainly I was worried whether I should BREAK the line at the entrance to
the house (and put the POE there) or if I should keep the cat5 line
continuous to the middle of the house (another 25 feet snaked about).

I was worried whether the break adds appreciable degradation?

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0500, Justin Time wrote:
> Centralize a wireless router and forego wiring the house.

That's essentially what I'm attempting.

I'll wire from the WISP antenna to the house (~ about 75') and then from
the house to the center of the house (~ another 25') where I'll put a
Linksys WRT54G wireless router.

I was mostly wondering if it was a good idea to BREAK the line at the
point where it entered the house (and put a jack there plus the POE power
supply) ... or ... if I should strive to keep the line intact up to the
router in the center of the house.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Well, not exactly:

Methods of using Ethernet in a ring topology
<http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/43116>
There's also RRPP (Rapid Ring Protection Protocol), RRST (Rapid Ring
Spanning Tree), and others designed to facilitate ethernet rings.
However, they are all intended for metro LAN's and large server farms,
not for home use.

Incidentally, don't under estimate coax cable. I've run 10base2
(10Mbits/sec) for about 1500ft using RG6a/u coax and a pair of
dedicated transceivers. Yes, it's 75 ohms, not 50 ohms. With
10base2, it's called CheaperNet.

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 03:39:30 -0800, mike wrote:
> You can have two sockets and a jumper wire. Remove the jumper to use
> the connector in the middle of the run, but that disconnects the rest of
> your system.

That was what I was wondering.

I 'could' put a socket at the wall where the wire enters the house. I'd
put the 15 volt Ubiquiti POE there (to shorten the length to the WISP
antenna 75 feet outside).

Then, the jumper would go from the POE to the center of the house where
the router sits.

That gives me the option of connecting a router either at the point where
the wire enters the house 'or' in the middle of the house (but not both
at the same time).

I 'am' confused - but I was mostly wondering if it badly degraded the
signal to add that jumper as opposed to stringing the outdoor cat5 cable
all the way to the center of the house unbroken.

> If one of those devices is a router, you can use one router port to
> continue the run while you use another router port to "tap" the signal.

May I reflect on that?

I think you're saying I can put the router itself at the point where the
wire enters the house.

Then, from the four LAN ports of the router, I can continue the 25 feet
to the center of the house.

From another of the four router ports, I can tap off to another portion
of the house.

My question is if I do that - I would want to have permanent jacks in the
wall.

So, I'd go from the antenna to the wall of the house where I'd put a jack.
Then, I'd go to the router INPUT port with a short jumper cable.
Then I'd go from one of the four router OUTPUT LAN ports back to the wall
at another jack next to the first jack.
Plus, I could go from another of the router output LAN ports to a third
jack in the wall, which connects to another portion of the house.

This makes sense to me, and fits my needs.

But are these three jacks next to each other at the wall of the house a
signal degradation issue?

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:32:21 -0800, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> But a lot depends on what it is he's intending to do, the various uses,
> how easy it is to run cable, etc. For at least some of the uses,
> wireless may be a better option

I was remiss in not stating the intention.


I have a typical home setup (kids, wife, etc.) on computers.

Very little data is between devices (except to the wireless printer).

Some rooms are just too hard to wire - so - I just need to wire the game
room (for the WII) and the office (for the VOIP phone & desktop computer).



I think I like best the option

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:32:51 -0500, clare wrote:
> If you want to split the cable where it enters the building best
> practice would be to install an active switch

Thanks for that idea!
I had not thought of the option of an active switch...

Does this makes sense?
- Start at the WISP antenna Bullet M2 radio (set up as a router) outside
- Wire goes from that radio/router (set to serve as DHCP) to just inside
the house
- Just inside the house, that wire goes to the 15 volt Ubiquiti POE
- From the POE, the wire goes directly to the 'active switch' also just
inside the house
- From that active switch, I presume I can have four (or more) ports
- So, one port goes to the 25 feet to the center of the house to a wall
jack (placed where I drilled the hole in the picture)
- At that wall port, I can put the central WRT54G wireless router for the
house
- I assume I can send another wire out of one of the four ports of the
active switch at the wall of the house to the game room (where the WII
sits).

Would that work?

I think the IP address of the WII would then be different than the IP
addresses of the devices on the other end of the WRT54G router ... so
that's why I ask if this would work?

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:36:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> The basic idea is to build a "star" (also known as home run). Everything
> comes to a central location, where you locate a 10/100baseT ethernet
> switch.

I now realize a 'star' topology is what I want (but I didn't know that
until now).

I was initially thinking of using my Linksys WRT54G router as the center
of the star!

That's why I was asking about additional jacks.

I was going to go from the four LAN ports of the WRT54G to the WII in the
game room (via additional wall jacks).

I think now that was a bad idea (right?).

The 'better' idea, as you noted, is to use an 'active ethernet switch' as
the center of the star. Right?

Drawing it on paper, does this make sense of what you suggested?
1. WISP antenna ~75 feet from the house
2. Ubiquiti Bullet M2 radio set up in router mode & DHCP server
3. POE just inside the house (it's an indoor Ubiquiti 15 volt POE unit)
4. Active 10/100 Ethernet switch just inside the house
5a. Out of the switch, one wire goes to the office (25 feet away)
5b. From there it goes to the Linksys WRT54G wireless router
5c. From there, the signal goes to the wireless devices scattered about
6a. Out of the switch, another wire goes to the game room (25 feet away)
6b. From a game room wall jack, a jumper goes to the WII
6c. This will be a different IP address - but that should be OK (right?)

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:36:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Most WISP system use PoE to the radio/antenna on the roof,
> and ethernet to some manner of power injector.
> From there, you run ethernet to a local router, and then to the
> central ethernet switch. The router might be built into your
> unspecified model WISP radio. Note that I said
> "switch", not "hub". You do not want a hub.

I had to look up hub versus switches versus routers.
- Hub: What goes in one port goes out all the others
- Switch: What goes in one port is 'intelligently' sent to another
- Router: Connects two networks to share the Internet connection

My desired setup is similar to what you've described.

- The 19 dBi planar antenna is outside on a pole pointed at the WISP AP
- (The antenna is not on the roof because I break tiles every time I go
on the roof!)
- Connected to the antenna is an outdoor Ubiquiti Bullet M2 radio
- That outdoor radio is currently configured as a router (not a bridge)
and it is set up to serve DHCP addresses and perform NAT
- From there the outdoor cat5 cable connects to a Ubiquiti 15volt POE
- From the POE, is up to me.

All I need is two wired points inside the house:
- The office (which is in a central location & where I'll put the WRT54G
broadband wireless router)
- The game room (which has a WII that I'd like to connect by wire)

I'd like the 'star' topology previously mentioned.

I'm confused if I need the "active 10/100 Ethernet switch" because I'm
wondering if the Linksys WRT54G is 'already' an active 10/100 Ethernet
switch.

Is it?

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:36:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Hopefully, you didn't run 75ft of coaxial cable between the radio and
> the antenna. That's much too long. Cable losses at 2.4GHz are quite
> high.

I don't currently have any coaxial cable.

The Ubiquiti Bullet M2 radio is actually screwed directly onto the back
of the antenna at the top of the mast. (Later, I'll add a ten-foot
pigtail coaxial cable to bring the radio to the bottom of the antenna for
ease of maintenance.)

From the radio at the top of the antenna, it's all outdoor cat5 cable
(twisted pair, UV protected, 24 AWG, solid conductor, $75 for 500 feet at
Home Depot).

The only reason the antenna is about 75 feet from the house is that's the
highest point. The roof is clay and I keep breaking the tiles when I go
up there so I vowed to not put anything on the roof itself!

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:36:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> While it's nice to have the outlet box attached to a stud, it's not
> necessary. There are rework PVC device boxes, that attach to the
> drywall.

You're clever.

I had not mentioned it, but, you noticed I went to a lot of trouble to
locate the drill hole next to a stud so that I could attach the cat5 box
to the stud.

I actually drilled DOWN from the wall to the crawl space even though the
picture shows the drill bit coming up (so I could show the drill bit).

> For wall entry, cable entry with a drip loop.
> There are some tricks involved (such as slightly angling the hole
> in the wall upward so accumulated water drips outward).
> Also, leave a service loop for anything that you install in the wall.

I haven't drilled the entrance hole to the house yet - so that's
EXCELLENT ADVICE!

I don't plan on putting anything "in the wall" - but - I might put the
POE and/or the suggested ethernet switch in the crawl space (there is
power cabling all over the crawl space but no actual outlets).

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:36:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> RJ45 jacks do not cause loss. Un-connected jacks do not cause loss.
> Unterminated cables do not cause loss.

Thanks; that's what I needed to know!

> The catch is that you have to install one cable for each RJ45 jack.

I have plenty of cable (I bought 500 feet of Home Depot outdoor rated
cat5 cable for $75) and the entire run is only about 100 feet to the
newly drilled hole in the office at the center of the house.

> Since CAT5e has 4 pairs of wires, and ethernet uses only 2 pairs,
> you can split the cable pairs and wire two jacks on the wall jacks

> and attach two RJ45 plugs at the other end of the cable.

That's good to know!

That means if I put the POE & ethernet switch on an indoor shelf in the
garage where the outdoor cat5 enters the house, I can then connect two
female ports of the ethernet switch to two male RJ45 connectors on a
single run of 25 foot cat5 cable to the center of the house under the
crawl space and up through the hole I already drilled, and then put TWO
female jacks at the center of the house in that wall (both using the same
cat5 cable).

I had not realized this was a possibility until you mentioned it just
now. Thanks.

PS: Thanks for admonishing me on the 'wire' versus 'cable' (I'll use the
term "cable" as there are no wires involved).

> However, if you're using PoE on this segment, you'll need
> all 4 pairs to the wall jack.

Again, very good information.

That means I probably want the POE earlier on in the star topology rather
than later on if I plan on using a single cable to serve two connections.

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:36:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> I think you're over your head a little.

Just a little? :)

Based on the advice, I think I'll go with the star topology.

I think I'll add the active ethernet switch (although I'm confused
whether the Linksys WRT54G router is 'already' an ethernet switch).

I think I'll double the amount of wall jacks that I think I need.

And, if the POE isn't involved, I'll put two jacks on a single cable.

This is how I'm leaning - now that I've been given the Christmas gift of
all this great advice:

1. 19 dBi WISP antenna
2. Ubiquiti Bullet M2 router (Radio mode, DHCP server, NAT turned on)
3. No pigtail currently - but a 10-foot N pigtail would bring the radio
down to ground level for ease of maintenance
4. From the bullet, out comes RJ45 outdoor cat5 cabling
5. That goes to a 15 volt Ubiquiti POE which must be located inside the
house (it's not an outdoor POE)
6. I'll drill a hole (upward at an angle) into the garage wall to enter
the house.
7. At that point, I can add an inexpensive 10/100 four-port active
ethernet switch (any recommendations on which one?)
8. From that central point of the star, I can send one cable with two
connectors on it to the office in the center of the house so that there
are two female ports in the wall where I've already drilled a hole.
8a. At the office, I'll connect one of those two ports to a Linksys
WRT54G router to serve the wireless devices in the household.
9. From the ethernet switch, I can send another cable to the game room
where another two ports can be placed in the wall.
9a. From one of those game room ports, I can connect a cat5 cable to the
WII

Total equipment:
- cat5 cable (outdoor rated, 24 AWG, solid conductor, 500 feet available)
- basic 10/100 active Ethernet switch (to act as the center of the star)
- one cable with two plugs going to the office
- two-port wall plate at the office (one port connected to WRT54G router)
- one cable with two plugs going to the game room
- two-port wall plate at the game room (one port connected to Wii game)

One question that remains is that with this setup, all the devices except
the game room devices will be on the other side of the home WRT54G router.

But, the game room will be only on the other side of the radio/router at
the antenna.

I think that means they'll both be on non-routable networks - but that
the game room will be behind only one router (the one on the antenna)
while the office equipment will be being two routers (the antenna radio
plus the Linksys WRT54G).

Does my understanding of the recommended setup make sense given all the
advice provided?

[tra...@optonline.net]

Agree with your comments about wireless. Wireless is great
when it's impractical for a wired connection and it works. But
it's no subsitute for a direct wired connection. My
experience with both in several environments is consistent
with yours.

To the points you've already covered, I'd add the issue of
security. That's one more layer of stuff to deal with for
wirless that you don't have to worry about with wired. If
you have no security, then anyone within range can access
your network. If you use encryption, not only does it
usually impact performance, but it also adds another
issue everytime you add or replace a device on the
network. Add a Tivo or PC and now you have to remember
and find the encryption key. Sounds easy, but I've seen
folks who spent hours trying to find the key,
get it entered correctly, etc.

With wired I can do a 1 gig Ethernet connection that is
reliable and inherrently secure. High end wireless routers,
ie 802.11N that are "gigabit"
actually only support that rate on the wired connections.
For wireless the theoretical data rate is 300Mbits.
And you might get near that if the two points are in the
same room. Across the house, it's doubtful.

So, if I had an easy wire run, no question I'd do it.

[tra...@optonline.net]

I think others have already responded that every time you put a
connection in a cable, you introduce one more place for problems
to occur. Put that connection outside, where the cable enters
the house and it's even more susceptable to problems.

Another secondary issue is each time you break the cable,
make a splice or use another connector there is some signal
loss. In this case, I think that's a minor point though.

Another issue I'd be concerned about is lightning protection.
Since the antenna is outside, I'd make sure the mast is
directly grounded and I'd also put some kind of surge protection
on the wires entering the house. Exactly what kind is
available off-the-shelf for this application I don't know.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Dec 25, 3:39 am, Chuck Banshee <chuckbans...@private.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:36:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > I think you're over your head a little.
>
> Just a little?  :)
>
> Based on the advice, I think I'll go with the star topology.
>
> I think I'll add the active ethernet switch (although I'm confused
> whether the Linksys WRT54G router is 'already' an ethernet switch)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the need
for another switch. From the description, you add a
switch where the WISP enters the house, then run
two ethernet connections from there to the office
where the wirless router will be going. But that router
will have 4 ports, so why the seperate switch?

I'd do a run straight from the antenna to a suitable location
for the wireless router which sounds like the office.
Then I'd do any wired runs that
are practical from the router. Typical router supports 4
wired connections. Do you need more than that?
If you want 3 or 4 in the game room, then I'd put a
switch there.

I'd power the WISP where the router is, or split it off
near where it enters the house if that is more practical.

Only other issues I'd be concerned with is that the wire
used for the low voltage power is of sufficient gauge for
the length. Perhaps somewhere in the instructions it
says it's good for distance X, etc. Or if you're just
using the total length
of wire came that with it, then you know it's OK.

The other issue is lightning protection. That outdoor
antenna should be directly grounded. And there
should be lightning protection on the wires that
enter the building. Curious, presumably the WISP
setup came with instructions. What do they say
about this?

[willshak]

Justin Time wrote the following:
> "miso" <mi...@sushi.com> wrote in message
> news:jd438j$1ra$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>> I'm a bit confused here. It should be one device per line, so what are you
>> paralleling?
>>

>> I'd put the router someplace like a closet in the middle of the house and
>> run wires to each room as needed. There are "structured" wiring bays if
>> you want to get fancy, rather than have wires dangling in the closet.

>>
>>
> All computer and Internet devices are wireless and the rest of the

> electronic technology is close behind, such as TVs. Centralize a wireless

> router and forego wiring the house.
>
>

My wireless experience.
When I installed another computer in the basement, after already having
a computer in each of our 3 bedrooms running off a wired router in the
master bedroom (2 daughters with their own computer in their bedrooms),
I elected to replace the wired router with a wireless router because the
basement was 3 floors down and on the opposite side of the house from
the master bedroom. This would have required running the cat cable up
though the MB wall into the upper attic, then across the attic rafters
to the other side of the upper attic, then down one floor into the lower
attic, then down though that attic wall 2 floors into the basement. I
didn't want to go though all that destruction.
After the wireless router was hooked up, I had a lot of problems with
the wireless signal in the basement, basically because the signal had to
go though walls and floors some 60 feet away. I tried moving the
wireless receiver all around the basement, including hanging it from the
ceiling in various places, trying to find the best place to get a good
signal. But wherever I put it, I would get a wavering signal, good one
time then bad another, sometimes within minutes of moving it. Kinda like
my cell phone signal in the basement which wavers from 1 bar to 4.
I finally moved the receiver across the room to the opposite side of the
basement without leaving my computer chair. Of course, the modem, being
in several pieces now, didn't get any signal at all. :-)
I then reluctantly went through the trouble of threading a cat5 cable
through the house.
The wireless router is still used because even though we lost 2 wired
computers when the girls moved out, we have a wireless laptop in the
kitchen for those times when you need the internet to look something up,
or connecting to one of the social networking services (not me) without
having to run up or down stairs. Besides, it can be used throughout the
main floor, or hooked up to the LED HDTV.


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

[willshak]

willshak wrote the following:

> basement without leaving my computer chair. Of course, the ///modem///,

Sorry, I meant 'receiver'.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 08:39:35 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
<chuckb...@private.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:36:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>I think I'll add the active ethernet switch (although I'm confused
>whether the Linksys WRT54G router is 'already' an ethernet switch).

All ethernet devices are "active". The last time there was a
"passive" hub was with ARCNET. It's just an "ethernet switch".

The added ethernet switch is there simply to allow for more ethernet
ports than the 4 provided by your WRT54G router.

>I think I'll double the amount of wall jacks that I think I need.

This will require a bit of planning. If this was new work, the idea
would be to have a jack on every wall. That's often overkill for
rooms that are unlikely to need more than one. The balance is to have
a jack on each wall that straddles a door. That's because it's rather
awkward and messy to run cables across a doorway. Therefore, try to
locate your wall jacks so that any cords do not cross walk ways,
doors, and traffic lanes.

>And, if the POE isn't involved, I'll put two jacks on a single cable.

I suggest you spend the money and use separate cables to each wall
jack. Eventually, you're going to install an NAS (network attached
storage) server, for storing such things as videos, photos, music,
apps, and junk. Gigabit ethernet is the way to get decent speed out
of NAS servers. It's also useful if you use a DVR that allows saving
shows on a PC. Anyway, gigabit requires all 8 wires.

Unfortunately, you bought your CAT5 at Home Despot and therefore
overpaid. Depending on your topology, my guess is about 50ft per
cable run. At that rate, your 500ft roll will not be enough cable. If
you're short on cash, split the cable between two jacks, but my
recommendation is to spend the money on more cable.

>1. 19 dBi WISP antenna
>2. Ubiquiti Bullet M2 router (Radio mode, DHCP server, NAT turned on)

Holdit. We may have a problem. It appears that you are using "double
NAT", where you have two devices doing NAT (the UBNT M2 and the
WRT54G). If you're going to do anything that involves incoming
connections (VoIP, remote desktop, games), you'll probably find it
easier to have a single easily configurable NAT device. I suggest you
turn OFF the DHCP server and NAT in the UBNT M2 radio, and leave the
NAT to the WRT54G. This way, the UBNT M2 delivers a single routable
IP address from the ISP to the WRT54G which then provides non-routable
IP addresses to all the home devices. Note that there's really
nothing fatally wrong with double NAT. It's just easier to deal with
single NAT.

>3. No pigtail currently - but a 10-foot N pigtail would bring the radio
>down to ground level for ease of maintenance

Maybe. At 10ft, I suggest LMR400 cable and Type N connector. At
2.4GHz, 10ft of LMR400 has a loss of about 0.6dB or about 10%. Good
enough. If you go to the next size smaller cable, LMR195, the loss is
1.85dB or about 35% loss. That's still acceptable depending on how
strong a signal you're getting from your WISP.

However, the UBNT Bullet M2 radios were not designed to mount or
operate in that manner. They were made to screw into the back of the
antenna panel. There's also a risk of getting water into the coax
cable, which will dramatically increase losses. You'll need to
waterproof the RF connectors. I use 1" wide PTFE plumbing tape (1/2"
will work and is easier to find) around the connector and partly up
the coax cable. Then, wrap the PTFE tape with common electrical tape
to keep it in place. Spray with clear Krylon for UV protection.

>4. From the bullet, out comes RJ45 outdoor cat5 cabling

Careful with the grade of cable. Outdoor can be anything from UV
proof CAT5 to gel filled, armored, thick jacket, and shielded cable. A
non-penetrating (extra thick) outer jacket is probably all you'll
need.

>5. That goes to a 15 volt Ubiquiti POE which must be located inside the
>house (it's not an outdoor POE)

Note that most UBNT PoE is not 802.3af compliant and is therefore
non-standard. This is not really a problem, just a warning to be
careful what you plug into the device. Ubiquiti claims that they went
this route to save costs.

>6. I'll drill a hole (upward at an angle) into the garage wall to enter
>the house.

Think about using some kind of tubular feed through. Don't forget the
drip loop on the outside. Nail the cable to the wall with something
like this:
<http://www.cablegiant.com/default.aspx?p_id=4&product_id=1490>
Black is probably better than white for UV resistance.

>7. At that point, I can add an inexpensive 10/100 four-port active
>ethernet switch (any recommendations on which one?)

You don't need an ethernet switch here unless you want wired internet
access in the garage. The easiest way is to just attach an RJ45 plug
to the end of some more CAT5. Plug it into the PoE adapter and
continue to run the cable into the house.

However, if you want ethernet in the garage, there's an IP layout
problem. The cable run between the UBNT M2 and the WRT54G WAN port
will have a single IP address from the ISP on it (if you turn off NAT
in the UBNT M2). If you install an extra ethernet switch in this
line, there's only one IP address for 2 devices to fight over, which
won't work. The right way(tm) to run ethernet in the garage is to
bring a 2nd cable back from a LAN port on the WRT54G back to the
garage for users. I wouldn't bother.

I don't really have any favorite ethernet switches. I like Netgear
switches because of the metal case, which is easier to mount and tends
to survive better than plastic cases. Netgear also tends to use 12V
power supplies, which I find more reliable than 5V power supplies. 12V
is also better for battery backup (12v gel cell and charger). However,
even the 12V supplies have problems:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/repair/slides/Netgear%20DSA-12R-12.html>

>8. From that central point of the star, I can send one cable with two
>connectors on it to the office in the center of the house so that there
>are two female ports in the wall where I've already drilled a hole.

If you must... I would still suggest running 2 cables.

Incidentally, I've found a LAN cable continuity tester especially
useful for catching my wiring errors.
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/220895828757>

>8a. At the office, I'll connect one of those two ports to a Linksys
>WRT54G router to serve the wireless devices in the household.

Close. One CAT5 cable from the PoE adapter in the garage to the WAN
(internet) port of the WRT54G. The rest of the house wiring
originates from the LAN ports on the WRT54G. The 2nd CAT5 cable,
going back to the garage, goes to one of the WRT54G LAN ports, and
might be used run a 2nd wireless access point.

>9. From the ethernet switch, I can send another cable to the game room
>where another two ports can be placed in the wall.

I'm assuming this ethernet switch is in the same general area as the
WRT54G. Essentially, it's a port expander. My guess is about 8 ports
minimum. 16 ports doesn't cost that much more.

>9a. From one of those game room ports, I can connect a cat5 cable to the
>WII
>
>Total equipment:
>- cat5 cable (outdoor rated, 24 AWG, solid conductor, 500 feet available)
>- basic 10/100 active Ethernet switch (to act as the center of the star)
>- one cable with two plugs going to the office
>- two-port wall plate at the office (one port connected to WRT54G router)
>- one cable with two plugs going to the game room
>- two-port wall plate at the game room (one port connected to Wii game)
>
>One question that remains is that with this setup, all the devices except
>the game room devices will be on the other side of the home WRT54G router.
>
>But, the game room will be only on the other side of the radio/router at
>the antenna.

See my comments on the cable run between the PoE adapter in the garage
and the WRT54G WAN (internet) port. It should not have any additional
devices connected to this run. ALL (and I do mean ALL) user devices
connect either to the 4 LAN ports on the WRT54G, or the ports on the
nearby 8/16 port ethernet switch. That puts them all on the same side
of the router.

>I think that means they'll both be on non-routable networks - but that
>the game room will be behind only one router (the one on the antenna)
>while the office equipment will be being two routers (the antenna radio
>plus the Linksys WRT54G).

Well, I can make a drawing and post it if necessary, but I think the
previous paragraph is clear enough. It would easier if you did the
necessary documentation (because I'm lazy).

>Does my understanding of the recommended setup make sense given all the
>advice provided?

Mostly yes. However, it's difficult to offer advice when you severely
limit your descriptions. I like numbers. Model numbers, distances,
sizes, lengths, distances, heights, and all the other stuff it takes
to make real calculations. The quality of the answers you receive
will largely depend on the quality of the numbers that you supply.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

With that distance, and setup, one piece to the center of the house
would be my recommendation.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 05:56:53 -0800 (PST), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>To the points you've already covered, I'd add the issue of
>security.

Cringe. I promised myself that I would not get involved in any more
security discussions. However, since this is a holiday...

>That's one more layer of stuff to deal with for
>wirless that you don't have to worry about with wired. If
>you have no security, then anyone within range can access
>your network. If you use encryption, not only does it
>usually impact performance, but it also adds another
>issue everytime you add or replace a device on the
>network. Add a Tivo or PC and now you have to remember
>and find the encryption key. Sounds easy, but I've seen
>folks who spent hours trying to find the key,
>get it entered correctly, etc.

The real problem with Wi-Fi security is the shared key. All wireless
clients on your network use the same shared key. If the key is
compromised, so is the entire network. There are complex ways to
sniff the traffic and recover the WEP/WPA key, but it's much easier to
simply borrow a laptop on the network, and recover a hashed key from
the registry:
<http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wireless_key.html>
In other words, the very concept of a shared key is lacking.

What's needed is a one time key, which does not need to be remembered.
This is accomplished with WPA-RADIUS. The user is presented with a
unique per-user login and password. The RADIUS server then delivers a
one-time, per session, and unique key. You could sniff the key, but
it would only be good for that session. Few home networks offer this
level of key management, although it's common in corporate networks.

>With wired I can do a 1 gig Ethernet connection that is
>reliable and inherrently secure. High end wireless routers,
>ie 802.11N that are "gigabit"
>actually only support that rate on the wired connections.
>For wireless the theoretical data rate is 300Mbits.

Chuckle. I've been tempted to offer a prize to anyone that can
demonstrate a streaming wireless connection that will do 300Mbits. I
know that it's been done in the lab (controlled environment) and with
dual band channel bonding, but I seriously doubt it can be done in the
presence of interference and uncontrolled reflections. The only
reason manufacturers offer gigabit ethernet ports is that they would
look rather foolish offering 100Mbits/sec ports on a router
theoretically capable of 300Mbits/sec wireless.

As for wired being more secure, I beg to differ. I have a small
collection of ethernet taps, that I use to sniff traffic for network
troubleshooting. If I wanted to sniff your network, I would install
one between your broadband connection and router. Taping a single
ethernet LAN port won't work because it will only see traffic on that
port and broadcast traffic.
<http://www.netoptics.com/products/network-taps>

>And you might get near that if the two points are in the
>same room. Across the house, it's doubtful.

I've done about 700Mbits/sec. I forgot the exact hardware but I do
recall that I had to tune both the client and server computers IP
stack to get decent performance. Out of the box, I think it was about
300Mbits/sec. For testing, I use iPerf and JPerf.
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/lanwan-howto/30408-measuring-network-performance-jperf>

>So, if I had an easy wire run, no question I'd do it.

I've never seen an easy run on a rework job. There's always some
complication involved. The easier it looks, the more complicated it
will become.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

I would not put jacks next to the router, myself. I'd just put plugs
on the end of the cable and plug them directly into the router or
switch.. Put jacks in the wall at the endpoint.

Connections that do not exist cannot cause problems in the future.
Using a jack and jumper at the router adds 4 sets of connections to
each run. That's 32 actual potential points of failure (of which 8 are
critical on 10/100 without POE, which are totally un-needed.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 07:19:55 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
<chuckb...@private.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:32:51 -0500, clare wrote:
>> If you want to split the cable where it enters the building best
>> practice would be to install an active switch
>
>Thanks for that idea!
>I had not thought of the option of an active switch...
>
>Does this makes sense?
>- Start at the WISP antenna Bullet M2 radio (set up as a router) outside
>- Wire goes from that radio/router (set to serve as DHCP) to just inside
>the house
>- Just inside the house, that wire goes to the 15 volt Ubiquiti POE
>- From the POE, the wire goes directly to the 'active switch' also just
>inside the house
>- From that active switch, I presume I can have four (or more) ports
>- So, one port goes to the 25 feet to the center of the house to a wall
>jack (placed where I drilled the hole in the picture)
>- At that wall port, I can put the central

>house
>- I assume I can send another wire out of one of the four ports of the
>active switch at the wall of the house to the game room (where the WII
>sits).
>
>Would that work?
>
>I think the IP address of the WII would then be different than the IP
>addresses of the devices on the other end of the WRT54G router ... so
>that's why I ask if this would work?

I don't see any reason why not - but a few questions.
The antenna is a router ? - so inside for the wireless you only want
an ACCESS POINT.
Is the WRT54G capable of working as an access point?

Apparently yes:
From googling

Settings to change (obviously, do this while plugged into a LAN port
on it):
Setup > basic setup > select 'auto config DHCP' in the connection type
drop-down; enter a good (outside of your DHCP range) IP address (and,
of course, match your current subnet); and click 'disable' on the DHCP
server line.
Then (here's where it becomes an AP; but, the wording's a bit wierd):
Setup > advanced routing > select 'router' from the operating mode
drop-down (in Linksys, Router = AP, Gateway = Router); 'both' on the
dynamic routing line; and 'LAN & Wireless' on the interface entry.

Of course, remember to click the 'save changes' button before you go
on to the next screen. Do, this, and your WRT54G is now a switch/WAP

Any reason not to just put the access point at the entry point, as it
is also an active switch? Is the wireless range adequate???.

I'd try that first - and if the range is insufficient, move it
upstairs to the center of the house and add the switch.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

It is. See my last posting

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

I would not bother splitting the cable - you have enough cable to do
it right and run 2 cables - which will allow you to move to gigabyte
ethernet later if technology dictates. Gives you redundancy too.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:
(blah-blah=blah...)

I forgot to mumble something about the location of the wireless
router. In general, the place where all the wires come together in a
star topology is a rats nest of cables. In home installation, the
mess is usually hidden behind a desk, behind the TV, in a closet,
inside a drawer, or buried in the garage:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/mess01.html>
The ethernet wires like to live close to the floor. However, wireless
likes to live as high as possible in order to avoid obstructions in
the house (i.e. furniture). It might be useful to locate the wireless
router on a high shelf, while hiding the ethernet switch somewhere
near the floor.

Incidentally, the stiff heavy black cables coming out of the back wall
are gel filled, shielded, and thick jacketed CAT5 cable. The ends are
terminated with special RJ45 plugs designed to accommodate the
oversized cable. There was enough spring tension in the cables to
unplug themselves.

The cables ran underground near a swimming pool which apparently
leaked a bit. That made the wires continuously wet. The jacket and
sticky gooey gel prevented moisture incursion into the cable, but did
nothing to prevent water from creeping over the outside of the cable,
and dripping into the cabinet box. A drip loop at the point of entry
would have prevented this, but that was impossible due to the method
of installation and the rather stiff cable. I ended up wrapping the
cables in a sponge, with vinyl tubing to a collection bucket.

[Stephen]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 00:19:16 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:29:24 -0800, Oren <Or...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:21:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
>>>walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
>>>way structured wiring is done.
>>
>>You've mentioned the star topology twice now. I agree it is the best
>>way to build the wired network. If one segment goes down, the rest of
>>the network is still up. Easier to trouble shoot a single segment.

>>
>>Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.
> Cannot run ring topology ethernet except on Co-ax.. AKA Slo-ax

Well - only if you define the domain as a single segment - and star
based Ethernet these days uses switches, and i think you are
explaining about topology in a single wiring closet, where a star on 1
switch is the easiest way to set it up.

But the topology between Ethernet switches can be pretty arbitary once
you hvae nore than 1 device - as long as you stay with a tree, or run
1 of the protocols designed to make sure any loops do not cause
problems (spanning tree, 802.1s/w RPR, etc)
--
Regards

stephe...@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl

[Stephen]

True

But - wiring tends to have a much longer lifetime than the equipment
hung on the end of it - not becuase it costs much, but because of the
hassle and disruption of changing it.

So my preference and the way i have wired up the later runs at home
after this hit me the 1st time is
1. run more sets of cables than you need - always seem to use more
than i tohught i might need......
2. terminate the fixed wiring on a panel or a wall jack.

That way when the "puppy attack" mentioned by Jeff happens, you just
replace a damaged patch lead, rather than the entire run, buried in
the walls.

[Justin Time]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message

news:qk5df7h9aob82sbbg...@4ax.com...

Since you're in the business, I can't dispute your experience and I'm sure
you've had your fair share. Perhaps my location provides an interference
free area thus serving my satisfaction of wireless. Being I work within a
University, the connection is fairly sound as well, though, don't get me
wrong, has had it's fair share of problems. Overall, I think it's safe to
assume the location plays a role when going wireless and I won't dispute
wired having a greater advantage over wireless. I just didn't think it was
as bad as the rebuttal. It won't be the first time I'm wrong. ;)

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:58:22 -0500, "Justin Time" <M...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Being I work within a
>University, the connection is fairly sound as well,

University services vary but are generally better than the typical
home wireless derrangement. They're always centrally managed,
properly configured, and tend to use better than average hardware.
Corporate style services, such as RADIUS authentication, logging,
traffic management, SNMP and Netflow monitoring, etc are common.
Channel layout is usually well controlled. Firmware updates are
maintained. Over powered amplifiers, repeaters, and monster antennas
are proscribed. (So is hiding users behind a firewall or sharing a
connection). Backhaul capacity is well above the level found in most
homes. However, the main reason you're not seeing wireless problems
is that considerable effort was put into planning and engineering
before it was deployed. It has to work on paper, before it will work
in the field.

Locally, we have UCSC (Univ of Calif Santa Cruz).
<http://its.ucsc.edu/wireless/index.html>
Plenty of hot spots:
<http://www2.ucsc.edu/its2/service_catalog/cruznet/locations.php>
I couldn't find traffic reports that are publicly visible.

>Overall, I think it's safe to
>assume the location plays a role when going wireless and I won't dispute
>wired having a greater advantage over wireless.

Well, my view is that it's not so much the location, as it is the
planning, design, use of high end hardware, monitoring, and
maintenance. If university systems were planned and installed in the
same manner as the average home wireless system, I would expect
serious problems.

>I just didn't think it was
>as bad as the rebuttal. It won't be the first time I'm wrong. ;)

Chuckle. No, it's not that bad. The problem with being in the repair
and service biz is that I only see the broken machines and networks.
I'm sure there are systems that work right out of the box, but I don't
see many of those. I just see the problems. From the repair persons
point of view, everything is broken.

On the other foot, 802.11 wireless is nothing more than ethernet
packets encapsulated in 802.11 packets. Spend some time with
WireShark sniffing wireless to see how it works. Every problem that
you might experience with a wired ethernet LAN, you can also
experience with an 802.11 WLAN. All that wireless adds is additional
layers of problems on top of the ethernet problems.

[Char Jackson]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>Incidentally, I've found a LAN cable continuity tester especially
>useful for catching my wiring errors.
><http://www.ebay.com/itm/220895828757>

I bought one of those on Ebay earlier this year from a Chinese seller.
The cost was $3.95, shipping (from China) was free and took 3 days,
and it came with a nicer than expected leather pouch. I figured it had
to be total crap and it probably is, but it seems to work rather well.

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:01:15 -0800, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> Another issue I'd be concerned about is lightning protection. Since the
> antenna is outside, I'd make sure the mast is directly grounded and I'd
> also put some kind of surge protection on the wires entering the house.

Oh oh. I thought that by virtue of the fact the steel mast is stuck into
the ground that it was 'protected' from lightning.

What kind of surge protection goes on a cat5 cable?

[miso]

On 12/24/2011 5:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:41:38 -0800, miso<mi...@sushi.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there any code for wire beneath 48V?
>
> Yep. It's called signaling or communications cable. Network wiring
> and telco are covered as NEC article 800.
> <http://ecmweb.com/nec/code-basics/electric_article_communications_circuits/>
> The basic it is to keep the stuff away from power cables.
>
>> I though the whole idea behind
>> low voltage wiring is that it is code free. Otherwise you would need an
>> electrician to wiring up a new phone outlet.
>
> There's no such thing as code free. If the NFPA had its way, there
> would be specifications for the toilet paper.
>
>> The trouble with networking experts is these are all the guys who were
>> run out of the alarm business when ADT and others started their free
>> installations. They became networking experts, home theater experts,
>> etc. Not that I blame them for finding new jobs where they can be self
>> employed, but quality is all over the map.
>
> Nope. Real cable experts are usually BICSI certified:
> <https://www.bicsi.org/single.aspx?l=2464,4192,4194>
> Note that BISCI also has a wireless designer certification:
> <https://www.bicsi.org/double.aspx?l=2572&r=2574>
> I'm tempted. Only $345... ouch.
>
> However, I agree about the quality. I only got the jobs that no sane
> and competent installer would accept. If I make a profit, I might
> actually document my work or label a few things.
>
>> Don't get me wrong. Some of these networking guys are really sharp. I
>> use a local guy for auto parts that is a CNI. Trouble is it is more
>> profitable to sell parts on the net than compete with the rest of the
>> networking firms. I have a friend that does networking strictly for
>> commercial and municipal jobs, and survives pretty much by having a long
>> list of jobs well done. Nobody in city hall wants to be the guy that
>> hired the clown network company, and so they write the bids with enough
>> legal mumbo jumbo that few first timers want to compete.
>
> Yep. However, the reason is different. The convoluted specs are
> usually to avoid legal complications and to cover the customers ass
> when the whole mess goes to litigation. I've been asked to carry
> oversight insurance, with the customer as the sole beneficiary, just
> in case they screwed up the job specifications. (Hint: I don't do
> much wiring these daze).
>
Lots of good information there. Regarding code, what cities have
inspection of data cables as part of the building inspection process.
Now I can see dumb ass stuff like running data and mains in the same
conduit producing an epic fail. But poor data wiring practices?

So I can see a code for everything, but how about an inspection for
everything?

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 14:28:13 -0500, clare wrote:
> The antenna is a router ? - so inside for the wireless you only want an
ACCESS POINT.
> Is the WRT54G capable of working as an access point?
> Apparently yes:

The antenna has an N connector on back which is directly connected to an
Ubiquiti Bullet M2 "radio" which can be set up either as a "bridge" or as
a "router".

Since my prior WISP required MAC authentication, and since Ubiquiti
Bullet M2 radios can only spoof MAC addresses in "router mode", that
radio was set up in router mode.

With my current WISP, who doesn't require the MAC address, I can now set
up the Bullet M2 radio as a "bridge" - so that is what I will likely do
(and what they are recommending).

But the BM2 radio on the antenna is currently still set up as a router.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 20:53:23 -0600, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
wrote:

Oops. I used a bad search term on eBay to find that. Using "LAN
cable tester" instead returned the cheap stuff. I couldn't resist
buying two of these:
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/260837060639>
to throw into my junk err... wiring box. $7. I think I paid $25
retail for the one I'm currently using.

[miso]

On 12/24/2011 11:31 PM, Chuck Banshee wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:36:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>> The basic idea is to build a "star" (also known as home run). Everything
>> comes to a central location, where you locate a 10/100baseT ethernet
>> switch.
>
> I now realize a 'star' topology is what I want (but I didn't know that
> until now).
>
> I was initially thinking of using my Linksys WRT54G router as the center
> of the star!
>
> That's why I was asking about additional jacks.
>
> I was going to go from the four LAN ports of the WRT54G to the WII in the
> game room (via additional wall jacks).
>
> I think now that was a bad idea (right?).
>
> The 'better' idea, as you noted, is to use an 'active ethernet switch' as
> the center of the star. Right?
>
> Drawing it on paper, does this make sense of what you suggested?
> 1. WISP antenna ~75 feet from the house
> 2. Ubiquiti Bullet M2 radio set up in router mode& DHCP server
> 3. POE just inside the house (it's an indoor Ubiquiti 15 volt POE unit)
> 4. Active 10/100 Ethernet switch just inside the house
> 5a. Out of the switch, one wire goes to the office (25 feet away)
> 5b. From there it goes to the Linksys WRT54G wireless router
> 5c. From there, the signal goes to the wireless devices scattered about
> 6a. Out of the switch, another wire goes to the game room (25 feet away)
> 6b. From a game room wall jack, a jumper goes to the WII
> 6c. This will be a different IP address - but that should be OK (right?)
This may be just a matter of terminology, but the router should have a
switch in it. I only add switches to get more ports. I've been using
these relatively cheap Dlink switches.
> http://www.dlink.com/DGS-2208

There is some black magic in this DLINK box that my linksys router
reservations work with ports the Dlink switches. How it works is "not my
problem", so I never investigated further. Installation was just plug it
in, no need to read any manual.

You still need the router. But if the router doesn't have enough ports,
you add the switch. The router handles the WAN, handled DHCP and has the
firewall. Essentially the switches can "star" out of the router ports.

A bit OT, but the more wireless stuff I put on my network, the more
often my router out and out fails. Pissed me off since Linksys refuses
to upgrade the firmware and there are no 3rd party hacks for it. And the
choice is just to buy something else from Linksys or official Cisco
branded gear, with no assurance they are going to get better support.

I really wish there was an alternative to Cisco, but all the other
consumer gear is far worse, especially Netgear.

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 14:28:13 -0500, clare wrote:

> Do, this, and your WRT54G is now a switch/WAP

Interesting. It's currently set up in "Gateway" mode, but, I went through
the motions you described (without hitting the save yet) and it 'did'
show all that you said it would in the pulldowns.

> Any reason not to just put the access point at the entry point, as it is
> also an active switch? Is the wireless range adequate???.

I'm not sure 'what' an AP is (with respect to a home setup).

Since all devices connect to my broadband router SSID, isn't the
broadband router in "gateway" mode already an access point (from the
computer's perspective)?

As for the range. The entry point into the house (garage) is on the far
end of the house; this I assume is too far for the other end of the house
(many walls away). But, there's an easy crawlspace under the house that I
could wire to the middle of the house and then on to the far end of the
house.

So, I think two actual wires will do me well:
* One to the middle of the house (main desktop computer)
* One to the far end of the house (Wii game room)

[miso]

On 12/25/2011 11:31 AM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 07:50:54 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
> <chuckb...@private.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:36:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> Most WISP system use PoE to the radio/antenna on the roof,
>>> and ethernet to some manner of power injector.
>>> From there, you run ethernet to a local router, and then to the
>>> central ethernet switch. The router might be built into your
>>> unspecified model WISP radio. Note that I said
>>> "switch", not "hub". You do not want a hub.
>>
>> I had to look up hub versus switches versus routers.
>> - Hub: What goes in one port goes out all the others
>> - Switch: What goes in one port is 'intelligently' sent to another
>> - Router: Connects two networks to share the Internet connection
>>
>> My desired setup is similar to what you've described.
>>
>> - The 19 dBi planar antenna is outside on a pole pointed at the WISP AP
>> - (The antenna is not on the roof because I break tiles every time I go
>> on the roof!)
>> - Connected to the antenna is an outdoor Ubiquiti Bullet M2 radio
>> - That outdoor radio is currently configured as a router (not a bridge)
>> and it is set up to serve DHCP addresses and perform NAT
>> - From there the outdoor cat5 cable connects to a Ubiquiti 15volt POE
>> - From the POE, is up to me.
>>
>> All I need is two wired points inside the house:

>> - The office (which is in a central location& where I'll put the WRT54G

>> broadband wireless router)
>> - The game room (which has a WII that I'd like to connect by wire)
>>
>> I'd like the 'star' topology previously mentioned.
>>
>> I'm confused if I need the "active 10/100 Ethernet switch" because I'm
>> wondering if the Linksys WRT54G is 'already' an active 10/100 Ethernet
>> switch.
>>
>> Is it?
> It is. See my last posting

Yes, my post as well. The additional switch is what you add to get more
ports. This could be in the closet, or you could put the switch in the
room itself where the wall jack is located if you need more than one
port in a room.

I noticed the Dlink unit I suggested is discontinued. Maybe Jeff can
comment on what magic if any is required so the switch maintained DHCP
reservations. [It is nice not to have the port assignments change. Not a
necessity, but still nice.]

I never owned a Dlink wireless router, but every other Dlink item I've
bought has been great. I don't think Dlink designs anything (I could be
wrong), but is like Beklin, i.e. they use ODMs. But so good thus far.

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:25:33 -0800, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> I don't see the need for another switch.

> ... you add a switch where the WISP enters the house,
> then run two Ethernet connections from there to the office
> where the wireless router will be going.

> But that router will have 4 ports,

> so why the separate switch?

You've hit the nail on the head for my 'original' confusion!

The original plan (one continuous cable) was as you stated:
- The cable from the antenna radio enters the house at the garage
- That cable then goes in the crawlspace to the upstairs office wall
- That cable ends at the upstairs office wall wallplate (drilled hole)
- The 15 volt POE is connected to that wallplate
- The other end of the POE goes to the Linksys WRT54G router input
... this primary goal would work fine for all wireless devices ... except
those in the game room ... which are presumed too far away for good
reception.

My initial confusion was then HOW to wire the game room at the far end
(opposite the garage) of the house.

Since the same crawl space that serves the office also serves the game
room, I was trying to figure out HOW to wire the three in series:
(a) Garage entry point at the one end (b) Office drill hole in the middle
of the house (c) Game room drill hole at the other end of the house.

The initial question was how best to wire that!

[miso]

On 12/25/2011 12:09 AM, Chuck Banshee wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:36:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>> While it's nice to have the outlet box attached to a stud, it's not
>> necessary. There are rework PVC device boxes, that attach to the
>> drywall.
>
> You're clever.
>
> I had not mentioned it, but, you noticed I went to a lot of trouble to
> locate the drill hole next to a stud so that I could attach the cat5 box
> to the stud.
>
> I actually drilled DOWN from the wall to the crawl space even though the
> picture shows the drill bit coming up (so I could show the drill bit).
>
>> For wall entry, cable entry with a drip loop.
>> There are some tricks involved (such as slightly angling the hole
>> in the wall upward so accumulated water drips outward).
>> Also, leave a service loop for anything that you install in the wall.
>
> I haven't drilled the entrance hole to the house yet - so that's
> EXCELLENT ADVICE!
>
> I don't plan on putting anything "in the wall" - but - I might put the
> POE and/or the suggested ethernet switch in the crawl space (there is
> power cabling all over the crawl space but no actual outlets).

Besides the drip line, you might want to google waterproof cable entry

There a probably a thousand schemes for cable entry. I've even see hacks
of the cable entry used to get mains into the house. I got a bunch of
Andrews cable entries that showed up an a surplus shop. Andrews is what
they use in repeater sites, cellular sites, etc.

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 03:01:50 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
<chuckb...@private.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:01:15 -0800, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>> Another issue I'd be concerned about is lightning protection. Since the
>> antenna is outside, I'd make sure the mast is directly grounded and I'd
>> also put some kind of surge protection on the wires entering the house.
>
>Oh oh. I thought that by virtue of the fact the steel mast is stuck into
>the ground that it was 'protected' from lightning.
>

I think that depends on a lot of factors, like how moist the ground
is, how deep the mast is sunk, etc. I do use a steel pipe, usually
much heavier that what they use for antenna masts, driven at least
eight feet into the ground, then attach a grounding clamp and bond the
ground wire to that when I need a ground..... and soil around here
(Texas, south of Houston) is "usually" very moist....

>What kind of surge protection goes on a cat5 cable?

The local company that installed my internet service (WISP) ran the
cat 5 from the radio/antenna into a box that included the connection
of a ground wire. Then wired that to the existing ground rod I had
earlier installed for my OTA antenna for HDTV.I have no idea if there
is something that can be got at a local store, but like most things,
it's probably available if you know what to ask for.

[miso]

I've had really bad luck with Netgear, which is why I suggested Dlink.
YMMV. Dlink has metal gate versions of their gear.

Regarding double NAT, that is really annoying. Some routers can detect
the double NAT (don't ask me how) and warn you.

Most DSL modems are one port routers. This can lead to address
conflicts. I really wish the modem manufacturers just expected the
customer to use a router. I don't know one person with broadband that
doesn't have a router attached. AT$T stared selling DSL modems with
routers probably to stop the customer service calls.

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:25:33 -0800, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> I'd do a run straight from the antenna
> to a suitable location for the wireless router
> which sounds like the office.
> Then I'd do any wired runs that are practical from the router.

That was the original plan.

> Typical router supports 4 wired connections.
> Do you need more than that?
Nope.

> If you want 3 or 4 in the game room, then I'd put a switch there.

I only need ONE in the game room.

What you are saying hits on the original design objective.
I wish my command of English were better because I confused everyone (I
think) because I'm confused HOW to wire from the router to the game room
in this scenario.

Is this the correct scenario for the sum total of the house wiring?
1. Cat5 cable enters house at lowered garage at the near end of the house
2. Cat5 continues into crawl space & into office floor in house center
3. Cat5 ends at a single female RJ45 in the (centrally located) office
4. Another cat5 cable starts at another single RJ45 in the office wall
5. That (inactive) cat5 goes down into the crawl space to the game room
6. That (inactive) cat5 ends at a single RJ45 jack in the game room

If that is the correct wiring sequence, then I can do that relatively
easily.

Now comes the active connections.

In the office - this is what I was planning:
a) The POE sits in the office, one end connected to the wall plate.
b) The other end of the POE connects to the Linksys WRT54G broadband
wireless router (which also has four LAN ports in the back)
c) One LAN port of the WRT54G goes to the desktop computer
d) Another LAN port of the WRT54G goes to the Belkin VOIP desktop phone

At this point, everything but the game room is now working.
The problem is that the game room is too far away for a good signal out
of the WRT54G.

I have two options (I think) for the 'game room' at the far end of the
house:
I. Add a wireless "repeater" of some sort (the purchase & setup of which
I am unfamiliar)
II. Add a cabled connection

THIS IS THE PART THAT WAS CONFUSING ME IN THE BEGINNING:

If I go with the cabled connection to the game room, is it 'this' simple?
A. I attach a jumper from the LAN port on the back of the WRT54G to the
second office wall plate
...(this 2nd office wall plate is just a connection to the game room wall
plate through the crawl space)
B. I attach a jumper from the game room wall plate to the Wii

My original (I agree confused) question was: Is it 'that' simple to add
the game room as a wired connection?

NOTE: It seems weird to me to have a 'dead' wire simply going from the
office wall plate to the game room wall plate.

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:25:33 -0800, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> Only other issues I'd be concerned with is that the wire used for the
> low voltage power is of sufficient gauge for the length.

The salmon colored Home Depot outdoor-rated solid conductor cat5 cable
($75 for 500 feet) is 24 AWG.

I'm guessing it's ~100 feet to the office in the center of the house
(including zig zags inherent in routing the wire).

The POE is 15 volts (but I have no problem buying a higher-voltage POE if
that is what is needed).

I guess I 'could' go up in size to 23 AWG cat5 cable - but the initial
comments intimated this gauge solid wire should be find for three times
the distance I'm calculating. (I think.)

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:15:25 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 20:53:23 -0600, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Incidentally, I've found a LAN cable continuity tester especially
>>>useful for catching my wiring errors.
>>><http://www.ebay.com/itm/220895828757>
>>
>>I bought one of those on Ebay earlier this year from a Chinese seller.
>>The cost was $3.95, shipping (from China) was free and took 3 days,
>>and it came with a nicer than expected leather pouch. I figured it had
>>to be total crap and it probably is, but it seems to work rather well.
>
>Oops. I used a bad search term on eBay to find that. Using "LAN
>cable tester" instead returned the cheap stuff. I couldn't resist
>buying two of these:
><http://www.ebay.com/itm/260837060639>
>to throw into my junk err... wiring box. $7. I think I paid $25
>retail for the one I'm currently using.

Jeff,

Will this device work with ethernet that includes Power? My wisp
installation uses POE from inside my computer room out to the radio on
my antenna mast. I don't know but think it's just plain ethernet from
there to my router. then plain ehternet after the router.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:05:34 -0800, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>Regarding code, what cities have
>inspection of data cables as part of the building inspection process.

In California, all the cities and counties have low voltage wiring
inspections as part of code compliance. In most cases, they simply
require compliance to the latest NEC wiring codes. They may add their
own details, but the basic requirements will need to be met.
Incidentally, the Peoples Republic of Santa Cruz requires a permit for
any construction costing over $500.

>Now I can see dumb ass stuff like running data and mains in the same
>conduit producing an epic fail. But poor data wiring practices?

It's not the wiring that's the problem. It's how it's mounted and
what it's made from. For example, you need to run plenum cable
through air spaces. Plenum cable does not generate much smoke and
will therefore not asphixiate fire fighters. Proper support and using
riser cable for long vertical runs is simply best practices to prevent
the wire falling or breaking under its own weight.

Try this quiz for practice:
<http://ecmweb.com/nec/whats_wrong_here/whats_wrong_122211/>
<http://ecmweb.com/nec/whats_wrong_here/whats_wrong_here_20100701/>
Plenty more:
<http://ecmweb.com/nec/whats_wrong_here/>

>So I can see a code for everything, but how about an inspection for
>everything?

From my limited and somewhat dated experience, the inspector doesn't
care much about sloppy LAN wiring. He's probably a former electrician
or contractor and doesn't know much about LAN wiring anyway. He does
care that the low voltage wiring is at least 2" away from AC power,
that it doesn't share any wall outlet boxes, and that it's not running
high currents through the cabling. Incidentally, some IEEE spec
recommends 6" for 120vac and 12" for 240vac. Where there are few
cables, the inspection is rather superficial. Where there's a large
number of cables (hospital, corporate, data center, etc), the
inspections are more thorough.

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> All ethernet devices are "active". The last time there was a "passive"
> hub was with ARCNET. It's just an "ethernet switch".

Thank you for that advice (as I was parroting the word "active" from
advice given earlier in this helpful thread).

I do greatly appreciate this clarification (just as I did in 'wire'
versus 'cable').

I'm already confusing enough to try to understand so I'll try to use
'wire' as a verb; and to drop the 'active' adjective in ethernet switch.

You can ALWAYS correct me as I appreciate the subtleties!

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:26:00 -0800, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>I noticed the Dlink unit I suggested is discontinued.

I bought several of those switches. Gigabit works well enough, but I
was never able to get close to wire speed with them. I'm not sure if
it's the switch or something else. Caveat Emptor.

>Maybe Jeff can
>comment on what magic if any is required so the switch maintained DHCP
>reservations. [It is nice not to have the port assignments change. Not a
>necessity, but still nice.]

Huh? An ethernet switch works on ISO layer 2 (MAC layer). DHCP works
on layers 2 and 3 (IP layer). As long as the switch can pass
broadcast packets (they all should), you should not have any problems
with DHCP broadcasts and negotiations. Each port on the switch has
its own MAC address. Your DHCP server should be picking up the MAC
address of the originating computer, not the local switch. If it
grabs the switch MAC address, then yes, it will try to change IP
address every time you move the ethernet port. However, that's NOT
the way it should work. Double checking:

C:\>arp -a
Interface: 192.168.1.11 --- 0x4
Internet Address Physical Address Type
192.168.1.1 00-16-01-97-fd-a6 dynamic

Yep... that's the MAC address of my Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 wireless
router, and not the MAC address of the ethernet switch located between
my PC and the router.

>I never owned a Dlink wireless router, but every other Dlink item I've
>bought has been great. I don't think Dlink designs anything (I could be
>wrong), but is like Beklin, i.e. they use ODMs. But so good thus far.

No comment. I won't generalize by manufacturer. Each one has their
winners and their losers. Dlink seems about average.

I recently picked up several Dlink DIR-601 (N150) wireless routers.
<http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=737>
These are cheap and basic routers. So far, no problems or failures. I
expected problems due to the new "green" features, such as reducing
the ethernet transceiver power for short cable lengths, but so far, so
good.
<http://www.dlinkgreen.com/greenproducts.asp>

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:53:10 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:

>><http://www.ebay.com/itm/260837060639>

>Will this device work with ethernet that includes Power?

Hell no! You're using it wrong. It's only intended to check wire
continuity. That means you have to unplug BOTH ends of the cable run.
Plug one RJ45 end into the "transmitter", and plug the other RJ45 end
into the "receiver". Then, you watch the light show at the receiver
end, making sure that there are no missing or out of order lights.

Note that the cable is completely disconnected at both ends from the
PoE injector and splitter. These won't interfere if since they're not
connected to the tester.

>My wisp
>installation uses POE from inside my computer room out to the radio on
>my antenna mast. I don't know but think it's just plain ethernet from
>there to my router. then plain ehternet after the router.

Unplug the cable and test just the cable.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 08:39:35 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
><chuckb...@private.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:36:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>>I think I'll add the active ethernet switch (although I'm confused
>>whether the Linksys WRT54G router is 'already' an ethernet switch).

>
>All ethernet devices are "active". The last time there was a
>"passive" hub was with ARCNET. It's just an "ethernet switch".

Not totally true. There were ethernet hubs. You likely can't buy one
any more.

from "state of the art netwoking":

By default hubs are single broadcast and single collision domain,
which means a device transmitting at a time, transmits to all the
devices in the network i.e. it broadcasts every time and every device
on the network listens to that broadcast and the one which it is meant
for picks it up. It’s anyone’s guess that how efficiently it will
work, its okay with one or two or three devices in a network but with
network scaling up and more and more devices being connected to it the
network dies down. How often we listen the complaints in office or
home that the network being slow or down, if there are hubs in the
picture that’s what going to happen, because there is no way with hubs
you can control LAN traffic congestion. One way to make an ever
increasing network is to segment a network in smaller part and that’s
when the switches come into picture.

Switches are much more than multi-port repeaters, they are quite
intelligent in a way that they recognize the devices connected to it
by their addresses, so there is no need to broadcast every time one
device want to share something or exchange information with another
device. It’s like now when hubs are gone I can talk to my friend by
addressing him by name, otherwise with hubs it was like I had to shout
from the rooftop for everybody to listen even though they didn’t want
to, what I wanted to say to my friend. So the above explanations make
switches a single broadcast and multiple collision domains. It
broadcasts only in one scenario in which it does not have information
about a device in its mapping table for which a particular piece of
info is transmitted, so it broadcasts that info that one time and
after finding about the device which accepts that it updates it table.

Also hubs operate in half duplex while switches can operate in full
duplex mode too. Adding a switch adds a lot of functionality to the
network and improves the efficiency of the network too. You can still
use hubs as per your networking needs but try using at least one
switch in case of a multiple hub network by plugging the hubs to the
switch, but an all switched LAN is just always better and I think I’ve
provided enough evidence for that.


>
>The added ethernet switch is there simply to allow for more ethernet
>ports than the 4 provided by your WRT54G router.
>
>>I think I'll double the amount of wall jacks that I think I need.
>
>This will require a bit of planning. If this was new work, the idea
>would be to have a jack on every wall. That's often overkill for
>rooms that are unlikely to need more than one. The balance is to have
>a jack on each wall that straddles a door. That's because it's rather
>awkward and messy to run cables across a doorway. Therefore, try to
>locate your wall jacks so that any cords do not cross walk ways,
>doors, and traffic lanes.
>
>>And, if the POE isn't involved, I'll put two jacks on a single cable.
>
>I suggest you spend the money and use separate cables to each wall
>jack. Eventually, you're going to install an NAS (network attached
>storage) server, for storing such things as videos, photos, music,
>apps, and junk. Gigabit ethernet is the way to get decent speed out
>of NAS servers. It's also useful if you use a DVR that allows saving
>shows on a PC. Anyway, gigabit requires all 8 wires.
>
>Unfortunately, you bought your CAT5 at Home Despot and therefore
>overpaid. Depending on your topology, my guess is about 50ft per
>cable run. At that rate, your 500ft roll will not be enough cable. If
>you're short on cash, split the cable between two jacks, but my
>recommendation is to spend the money on more cable.
>
>>1. 19 dBi WISP antenna
>>2. Ubiquiti Bullet M2 router (Radio mode, DHCP server, NAT turned on)
>
>Holdit. We may have a problem. It appears that you are using "double
>NAT", where you have two devices doing NAT (the UBNT M2 and the
>WRT54G). If you're going to do anything that involves incoming
>connections (VoIP, remote desktop, games), you'll probably find it
>easier to have a single easily configurable NAT device. I suggest you
>turn OFF the DHCP server and NAT in the UBNT M2 radio, and leave the
>NAT to the WRT54G. This way, the UBNT M2 delivers a single routable
>IP address from the ISP to the WRT54G which then provides non-routable
>IP addresses to all the home devices. Note that there's really
>nothing fatally wrong with double NAT. It's just easier to deal with
>single NAT.
>
>>3. No pigtail currently - but a 10-foot N pigtail would bring the radio
>>down to ground level for ease of maintenance
>
>Maybe. At 10ft, I suggest LMR400 cable and Type N connector. At
>2.4GHz, 10ft of LMR400 has a loss of about 0.6dB or about 10%. Good
>enough. If you go to the next size smaller cable, LMR195, the loss is
>1.85dB or about 35% loss. That's still acceptable depending on how
>strong a signal you're getting from your WISP.
>
>However, the UBNT Bullet M2 radios were not designed to mount or
>operate in that manner. They were made to screw into the back of the
>antenna panel. There's also a risk of getting water into the coax
>cable, which will dramatically increase losses. You'll need to
>waterproof the RF connectors. I use 1" wide PTFE plumbing tape (1/2"
>will work and is easier to find) around the connector and partly up
>the coax cable. Then, wrap the PTFE tape with common electrical tape
>to keep it in place. Spray with clear Krylon for UV protection.
>
>>4. From the bullet, out comes RJ45 outdoor cat5 cabling
>
>Careful with the grade of cable. Outdoor can be anything from UV
>proof CAT5 to gel filled, armored, thick jacket, and shielded cable. A
>non-penetrating (extra thick) outer jacket is probably all you'll
>need.
>
>>5. That goes to a 15 volt Ubiquiti POE which must be located inside the
>>house (it's not an outdoor POE)
>
>Note that most UBNT PoE is not 802.3af compliant and is therefore
>non-standard. This is not really a problem, just a warning to be
>careful what you plug into the device. Ubiquiti claims that they went
>this route to save costs.
>
>>6. I'll drill a hole (upward at an angle) into the garage wall to enter
>>the house.
>
>Think about using some kind of tubular feed through. Don't forget the
>drip loop on the outside. Nail the cable to the wall with something
>like this:
><http://www.cablegiant.com/default.aspx?p_id=4&product_id=1490>
>Black is probably better than white for UV resistance.
>
>>7. At that point, I can add an inexpensive 10/100 four-port active
>>ethernet switch (any recommendations on which one?)
>
>You don't need an ethernet switch here unless you want wired internet
>access in the garage. The easiest way is to just attach an RJ45 plug
>to the end of some more CAT5. Plug it into the PoE adapter and
>continue to run the cable into the house.
>
>However, if you want ethernet in the garage, there's an IP layout
>problem. The cable run between the UBNT M2 and the WRT54G WAN port
>will have a single IP address from the ISP on it (if you turn off NAT
>in the UBNT M2). If you install an extra ethernet switch in this
>line, there's only one IP address for 2 devices to fight over, which
>won't work. The right way(tm) to run ethernet in the garage is to
>bring a 2nd cable back from a LAN port on the WRT54G back to the
>garage for users. I wouldn't bother.
>
>I don't really have any favorite ethernet switches. I like Netgear
>switches because of the metal case, which is easier to mount and tends
>to survive better than plastic cases. Netgear also tends to use 12V
>power supplies, which I find more reliable than 5V power supplies. 12V
>is also better for battery backup (12v gel cell and charger). However,
>even the 12V supplies have problems:
><http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/repair/slides/Netgear%20DSA-12R-12.html>
>
>>8. From that central point of the star, I can send one cable with two
>>connectors on it to the office in the center of the house so that there
>>are two female ports in the wall where I've already drilled a hole.
>
>If you must... I would still suggest running 2 cables.

>
>Incidentally, I've found a LAN cable continuity tester especially
>useful for catching my wiring errors.
><http://www.ebay.com/itm/220895828757>
>

>>8a. At the office, I'll connect one of those two ports to a Linksys
>>WRT54G router to serve the wireless devices in the household.
>
>Close. One CAT5 cable from the PoE adapter in the garage to the WAN
>(internet) port of the WRT54G. The rest of the house wiring
>originates from the LAN ports on the WRT54G. The 2nd CAT5 cable,
>going back to the garage, goes to one of the WRT54G LAN ports, and
>might be used run a 2nd wireless access point.
>
>>9. From the ethernet switch, I can send another cable to the game room
>>where another two ports can be placed in the wall.
>
>I'm assuming this ethernet switch is in the same general area as the
>WRT54G. Essentially, it's a port expander. My guess is about 8 ports
>minimum. 16 ports doesn't cost that much more.
>
>>9a. From one of those game room ports, I can connect a cat5 cable to the
>>WII
>>
>>Total equipment:
>>- cat5 cable (outdoor rated, 24 AWG, solid conductor, 500 feet available)
>>- basic 10/100 active Ethernet switch (to act as the center of the star)
>>- one cable with two plugs going to the office
>>- two-port wall plate at the office (one port connected to WRT54G router)
>>- one cable with two plugs going to the game room
>>- two-port wall plate at the game room (one port connected to Wii game)
>>
>>One question that remains is that with this setup, all the devices except
>>the game room devices will be on the other side of the home WRT54G router.
>>
>>But, the game room will be only on the other side of the radio/router at
>>the antenna.
>
>See my comments on the cable run between the PoE adapter in the garage
>and the WRT54G WAN (internet) port. It should not have any additional
>devices connected to this run. ALL (and I do mean ALL) user devices
>connect either to the 4 LAN ports on the WRT54G, or the ports on the
>nearby 8/16 port ethernet switch. That puts them all on the same side
>of the router.
>
>>I think that means they'll both be on non-routable networks - but that
>>the game room will be behind only one router (the one on the antenna)
>>while the office equipment will be being two routers (the antenna radio
>>plus the Linksys WRT54G).
>
>Well, I can make a drawing and post it if necessary, but I think the
>previous paragraph is clear enough. It would easier if you did the
>necessary documentation (because I'm lazy).
>
>>Does my understanding of the recommended setup make sense given all the
>>advice provided?
>
>Mostly yes. However, it's difficult to offer advice when you severely
>limit your descriptions. I like numbers. Model numbers, distances,
>sizes, lengths, distances, heights, and all the other stuff it takes
>to make real calculations. The quality of the answers you receive
>will largely depend on the quality of the numbers that you supply.

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> The balance is to have a jack on each wall that straddles a door.

> That's because it's awkward and messy to run cables across a doorway.

Jeff's words are very interesting words of experience.

It's exactly what I don't have ... so I doubly appreciate the advice!

Especially since I'm finding walls within walls the more I drill deep! :)

Here are some pictures of the setup (to explain what I mean).

Picture taken just now of the WISP antenna setup (jury rigged with
extension cords and patch cords until I get the wiring figured out).
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223272/img/7223272.gif

Here is what I found when I popped a hole in the game room wall!
(there was a hidden wall inside the outside wall!)
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223279/img/7223279.gif

[miso]

I can certainly believe the common box issue. Well separated boxes would
never pass muster with the lady of the house. Bad enough they try to
block outlets with furniture. Your suggestion of wiring two walls on
either side of the door is a good one. Almost any wire in a room can be
tolerated except if it crosses a door.

Years ago I took a structured wiring "class" at CES, just to see what
was happening. This was before the WWW was cranking at 11, though it
existed. They suggested two networks per room. I could never get a
reasonable explanation for why this was a good idea. Not on different
walls, but two networks to the same outlet. Like the person saw it done,
but didn't really know why himself. Of course there is no shortage of
space on the wall outlet plate for multiple RJ45.

That was where I learned nearly everyone in the class was an ex-alarm
installer. Oy!

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

If and when the "puppy attack" happens you cut the damaged cable and
install a jack. Always leave some extra cable in the wall or wherever
so you have something to work with.

[Char Jackson]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 03:48:11 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
<chuckb...@private.com> wrote:

>THIS IS THE PART THAT WAS CONFUSING ME IN THE BEGINNING:
>
>If I go with the cabled connection to the game room, is it 'this' simple?
>A. I attach a jumper from the LAN port on the back of the WRT54G to the
>second office wall plate
>...(this 2nd office wall plate is just a connection to the game room wall
>plate through the crawl space)
>B. I attach a jumper from the game room wall plate to the Wii
>
>My original (I agree confused) question was: Is it 'that' simple to add
>the game room as a wired connection?

Yes, it's that simple. That's exactly how I've done it myself.

>NOTE: It seems weird to me to have a 'dead' wire simply going from the
>office wall plate to the game room wall plate.

It's not dead once you connect devices to each end of it.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:26:00 -0800, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

Being in the business, I have had more D-Link consumer equipment
failures than any other brand. Their commercial grade stuff is so-so.
The only one's I've used have failed within 5 years.
I'm currently using an Airlink NIMO router in the basement of my 2
storey house and the signal is useable throught the whole house and 15
feet behind the house on the patio as well.

[Char Jackson]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:47:35 -0800, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>Most DSL modems are one port routers. This can lead to address
>conflicts.

That doesn't make sense. Why would a single port router lead to
address conflicts?

>I really wish the modem manufacturers just expected the
>customer to use a router. I don't know one person with broadband that
>doesn't have a router attached. AT$T stared selling DSL modems with
>routers probably to stop the customer service calls.

If the DSL modem already includes a router, why are people adding a
second router? I know there are some edge cases, but I'm wondering
about the majority.

[miso]

I'm just running the switches in rooms (short cables), but a friend has
them going through the house, much like what the OP wants. I don't know
if he ever checked them for speed.

I might just get a Dlink router and chalk the Linksys box (not a cheap
one) up to experience. The one time I needed support from D-Link, it was
excellent. I can't say my experience with Linksys is the same.

I fired up some Dlink WAPs about two years ago. Old B stuff I no longer
used, but wanted to do a quick bridge. They still worked. I've had
Netgear stuff fail under two years. Twice. However, they may not suck
anymore. Or maybe I got junk. People complain about Netgear power
supplies, but mine were fine. I saved the wall warts and trashed the rest.

Netgear used to have a different name. It was a product of a merger IIRC>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netgear

Ah yes, Bay Networks.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Link

According to wiki (which of course doesn't mean much), Netgear is
outsourced and D-Link is not. I don't get too bent out of shape
regarding OEMs, but I ODM-ing is another story. Support on ODM gear
tends to be poor. When you use ODMs, then you are just shipping black boxes.

I'm just appalled at the crappy service I got from Linksys on a box
close to $200.

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:04:38 +0000, Chuck Banshee wrote:
> This is my first time installing cat5 cable in my house and I am unsure
> how to connect to RJ45 jacks that I need to put in the wall.

Here, to help, are 6 pictures uploaded to simplify descriptions:

1. WISP antenna currently jury rigged with patch cords & extension cables:
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223272/img/7223272.gif

2. So-called "bucket router" temporarily being used to bring signal into
the house wirelessly from outside:
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223356/img/7223356.gif

3. Crawl space view up into the floor of the office (center of house):
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223362/img/7223362.jpeg

4. Crawl space view over to the game room (far end of house):
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223369/img/7223369.gif

5. Entry point at the office (where the office jack will be placed):
www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7212874/1024/Anonymous/cat5-questions.gif

6. Entry point of the game room (where the game room jack will be placed):
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223279/img/7223279.gif

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:39:05 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 08:39:35 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
>><chuckb...@private.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:36:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>I think I'll add the active ethernet switch (although I'm confused
>>>whether the Linksys WRT54G router is 'already' an ethernet switch).
>>
>>All ethernet devices are "active". The last time there was a
>>"passive" hub was with ARCNET. It's just an "ethernet switch".
>
>Not totally true. There were ethernet hubs. You likely can't buy one
>any more.

Nope. There were no *PASSIVE* ethernet hubs. Passive means that
there's no powered electronics inside. You can combine (mix) data on
a token passing network, such are Arcnet, but not with ethernet. You
could consider 10base5 or 10base2 to be some manner of distributed
passive hub, but that's not common terminology.

>from "state of the art netwoking":

If it's in print, it's obsolete.

>By default hubs are single broadcast and single collision domain,
>which means a device transmitting at a time, transmits to all the
>devices in the network i.e. it broadcasts every time and every device
>on the network listens to that broadcast and the one which it is meant
>for picks it up.

Correct. A hub is also called a multiport repeater (especially in
IEEE documents, which drive me nuts).
<http://www.linfo.org/hub.html>

Detail:
1. A two port ethernet switch is called a bridge.
2. All 802.11 wireless is bridging. While there may be layer 3 IP
configuration for the router section, the actual wireless traffic is
bridging.
3.

>It’s anyone’s guess that how efficiently it will
>work, its okay with one or two or three devices in a network but with
>network scaling up and more and more devices being connected to it the
>network dies down.

I haven't seen many large hubs for perhaps 15 years. Compex TX3264U
64 port hub is one. Cisco had a large hubs, but I can't find the
number. They not common.

What limits the speed of the hub is that it can go no faster than the
rated wire speed of a single port. For example, if I had a 100baseT
hub, and was running a network backup between two ports, there would
be zero bandwidth available to the other ports. Needless to say, hubs
don't scale very well and are easily maxed out.

Ethernet switches don't have that problem. There are two basic types,
bus and crossbar. The bus type bandwidth is limited by the bandwidth
of the internal backplane. 2GHz is typical. You can transfer data
between any two ports at wire speed. You can also have independent
(non-blocking) transfers between two other ports, up until the
available bus bandwidth is exhausted. For example, a 100baseT switch,
with a 2GHz bus, can use up to:
2000 / 100 = 20 pairs of ports.
That limits this particular switch to 40 ports before it runs out of
bus bandwidth. The crossbar switch is simply a cross point switch
between any two ports. This becomes unwieldy with a large number of
ports, because every time you double the number of ports, you need 4
times the number of cross points. It is cheap and effective up to
about 32 ports. Of course, there are hybrids between the two types.

>How often we listen the complaints in office or
>home that the network being slow or down, if there are hubs in the
>picture that’s what going to happen, because there is no way with hubs
>you can control LAN traffic congestion. One way to make an ever
>increasing network is to segment a network in smaller part and that’s
>when the switches come into picture.

That's called collision domains.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_domain>

>Switches are much more than multi-port repeaters, they are quite
>intelligent in a way that they recognize the devices connected to it
>by their addresses, so there is no need to broadcast every time one
>device want to share something or exchange information with another
>device.

Not quite. Switches pass broadcast packets to all ports. This is one
of the big headaches with large wireless LANs, which can easily (and
quite often) end up belching nothing but broadcasts (ARP requests
etc). I've sniffed a (now defunct) muni wi-fi system that was doing
that. Little wonder users found it slow and useless.

What ethernet switches will NOT pass are collisions, corrupted
packets, malformed packets, garbage, jabber, and noise. Not passing
collisions is why it's called a collision domain.

>It’s like now when hubs are gone I can talk to my friend by
>addressing him by name, otherwise with hubs it was like I had to shout
>from the rooftop for everybody to listen even though they didn’t want
>to, what I wanted to say to my friend. So the above explanations make
>switches a single broadcast and multiple collision domains. It
>broadcasts only in one scenario in which it does not have information
>about a device in its mapping table for which a particular piece of
>info is transmitted, so it broadcasts that info that one time and
>after finding about the device which accepts that it updates it table.

Discarding packets is something that an ethernet card, in a PC, does
quite easily and neatly. The card just looks at the header and
determines if the destination is the local device. If not, it just
drops the packet. This is all done in hardware on the ethernet card
and does not involve the CPU. The time wasted by dropping packets
cannot be recovered, which will certainly have an impact on speed, but
it will not slow down the computah.

>Also hubs operate in half duplex while switches can operate in full
>duplex mode too.

Yep.

>Adding a switch adds a lot of functionality to the
>network and improves the efficiency of the network too. You can still
>use hubs as per your networking needs but try using at least one
>switch in case of a multiple hub network by plugging the hubs to the
>switch, but an all switched LAN is just always better and I think I’ve
>provided enough evidence for that.

Sorta. Many managed ethernet switches (i.e. Cisco) allow some ports
to be configured as a hub. These are intended for monitoring traffic
on other ports. Since the monitor port will not be used for any
incoming traffic, there's no slow down caused by it monopolizing the
switch bus bandwidth. It's very handy for network management, traffic
monitoring, diagnostics, snooping, and playing around. Otherwise,
hubs are a bad nightmare that are thankfully obsolete. A clue is that
you can't buy a brand new ethernet hub anywhere.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:11:09 -0800, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>Bad enough they try to
>block outlets with furniture.

Been there. Use a recessed wall plate:
<http://cableorganizer.com/datacomm-electronics/recessed-pro-power-flat-panel-kits/>
<http://cableorganizer.com/leviton/decora-recessed-duplex-receptacles.html>

I dunno about this one:
<http://images1.cableorganizer.com/leviton/decora-recessed-receptacles/690-i-lg.jpg>

>Your suggestion of wiring two walls on
>either side of the door is a good one. Almost any wire in a room can be
>tolerated except if it crosses a door.

Yep. It didn't take me much to work out the problem and magic
formula. Convincing the customer is much more difficult.

>Years ago I took a structured wiring "class" at CES, just to see what
>was happening. This was before the WWW was cranking at 11, though it
>existed. They suggested two networks per room. I could never get a
>reasonable explanation for why this was a good idea. Not on different
>walls, but two networks to the same outlet. Like the person saw it done,
>but didn't really know why himself. Of course there is no shortage of
>space on the wall outlet plate for multiple RJ45.

I've never heard that one.

I've had an electrician tell me that the right way to wire a house is
to put run 4 wires instead of 3 to each wall outlet, and set them up
so that each of the two outlets goes to a seperate breaker, and
possibly a seperate phase. It's also handy for wiring 220VAC in the
same outlet. The extra wire can also be used for wiring 3 way
switches. Probably a good idea, but nobody is doing it.

>That was where I learned nearly everyone in the class was an ex-alarm
>installer. Oy!

These daze, home alarms are either carrier current on the AC power
wires, or wireless.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:27:26 -0600, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
wrote:

>If the DSL modem already includes a router, why are people adding a
>second router? I know there are some edge cases, but I'm wondering
>about the majority.

Well, this is messy, but I think you might appreciate the details.
I'll use the common Speedstream 4200 DSL modem as an example. When
installed in the approved AT&T manner, the ethernet port delivers
192.168.1.64 to the external router. The management IP address of the
DSL modem is 192.168.1.1.

When connected to a typical Linksys router, the router also wants to
use 192.168.1.1 as it's IP address. That's not going to work, and the
DSL modem automagically switches to 192.168.0.1 and delivers
192.168.0.64. (This is not 100% reliable, causes some odd problems,
and is largely responsible for why Belkin and others are delivering
routers using 192.168.2.1).

At first glance, this arrangement looks like double NAT. It is, but
with a difference. All IP ports in the DSL modem are forwarded to the
ethernet port, so there's no problem with incoming traffic not making
it to the router. Were this a "real" double NAT setup, the first
router (in the DSL modem) would NOT have any ports forwarded by
default.

The catch is that you can only forward ALL the IP ports to one IP
address. That means that the DSL modem can only do the NAT thing to
one IP address, and therefore to only one device. If that device is a
router, there's no problem. If you try to connect an ethernet switch
to the DSL modem, and plug in multiple computahs, only one computah
will work.

There's one other item that might be of interest. The DSL modem
intercepts all traffic on the WAN (DSL) side destined to the
management IP address (192.168.1.1). Normally, the external router is
configured to send everything to the internet, except the IP's on the
LAN side (192.168.1.xxx). If you plug 192.168.1.1 into the web
browser, the router will send it to the internet, and the DSL modem
will not respond. So, they violate some RFC, and trap this address,
sending it to the local LAN side, and then to the management web
server inside the modem.

The problem is that the 4200 seems to have a botched implementation of
this undocumented feature. The later DSL modems work well, as do most
cable modems. Older modems lack this feature and require a static
route on the WAN side to get to the DSL modem management web page.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 05:03:03 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
<chuckb...@private.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> The balance is to have a jack on each wall that straddles a door.
>> That's because it's awkward and messy to run cables across a doorway.
>
>Jeff's words are very interesting words of experience.

I have the scars to prove it.

>Especially since I'm finding walls within walls the more I drill deep! :)

Sigh. Like I said, there are no simple installs.

>Here are some pictures of the setup (to explain what I mean).
>
>Picture taken just now of the WISP antenna setup (jury rigged with
>extension cords and patch cords until I get the wiring figured out).
> http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223272/img/7223272.gif

Looks ok to me. Nothing much to complain about here. Well, don't
forget to use anti-seize grease on the threaded pipe mast.

>Here is what I found when I popped a hole in the game room wall!
>(there was a hidden wall inside the outside wall!)
> http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223279/img/7223279.gif

Looks like someone built up the wall with battens, wallboard, and
floor tiles glued to the wallboard. What are the wall tiles made
from? I think I can see why the stud finder didn't work. The studs
are too far away.

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 14:34:36 -0500, clare wrote:
> I would not bother splitting the cable - you have enough cable to do
> it right and run 2 cables - which will allow you to move to gigabyte
> ethernet later if technology dictates. Gives you redundancy too.

I understand and agree.

Home Depot didn't have anything between 100 feet (which was too short)
and 500 feet (which is probably three times what I need).

Here's a picture of the box of cable that I bought:
- $75 cat5e 24AWG solid core indoor/outdoor "tan"
- http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223279/img/7223279.gif

Here are 6 pictures of the current (abomination) setup:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/e153f219bb15302a

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Unfortunately, you bought your CAT5 at Home Despot and therefore
> overpaid.

Where do most of you buy about 250 feet of cat5e cable?
( Here is a picture of what I bought for $75 + San Jose tax)
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223279/img/7223279.gif

> Holdit. We may have a problem. It appears that you are using "double
> NAT", where you have two devices doing NAT (the UBNT M2 and the WRT54G).

Yes. But.

My new WISP is asking me to put the first device (UBNT M2) in 'bridge'
mode so that it would be on my WISP provider's subnet (Santa Cruz
Mountains).

> If you're going to do anything that involves incoming connections
> (VoIP, remote desktop, games), you'll probably find it easier to have a
> single easily configurable NAT device.

My portable Skype phone works - but sometimes on outgoing calls (which is
the only way I use it) it only hears one end of the conversation. Could
'that' be related to the double NAT?

> I suggest you turn OFF the DHCP server and NAT in the UBNT M2 radio,
and leave the NAT to the WRT54G.

I understand the suggestion. In effect, I think both the NAT & the DHCP
will be removed when/if I follow my WISP's recent (yesterday) suggestion
to configure the Ubuntu Bullet M2 in "bridge" mode and change the IP
address to be on his subnet.

> At 10ft, I suggest LMR400 cable and Type N connector.

One reason I may have to add "a" pigtail is that the planar antenna N
connector is in the CENTERLINE of the antenna (which seems to me to be
the dumbest place to be!).

The problem with the centerline is that the mast is in that same
centerline! So, you can't have any mast ABOVE the antenna.

Here is a picture I took tonight of what I mean:
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223272/img/7223272.gif

You can see the bullet-shaped white Ubiquiti M2 screwed directly into the
back of the 19 dBi planar antenna, tilted slightly upward.

In the future, if I want to add a TV antenna, I'd have to move the bullet
M2 out of the centerline anyway. So, at that point, I'll need "a" patch
cord anyway.

Your discussion on the signal losses in that pigtail are interesting!

> Careful with the grade of cable. Outdoor can be anything from UV proof
> CAT5 to gel filled, armored, thick jacket, and shielded cable. A
> non-penetrating (extra thick) outer jacket is probably all you'll need.

This is a picture of what I bought from "Home Despot" for $75 + tax:
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223279/img/7223279.gif

Does it look OK for the 3 runs below?
a) About 100 feet from the antenna to the garage (zig zagging outdoors &
buried just underground) ... and then continuous to ...
b) About 25 feet from the garage to the crawl space up to the office (zig
zagging all indoors)
c) About 25 separate feet from the office back down to the crawl space
and horizontally over to the game room

> The right way(tm) to run ethernet in the garage is to bring a 2nd
> cable back from a LAN port on the WRT54G back to the garage

That makes sense because that was the "right way(tm)" to wire the game
room; if I were to wire the garage, then it makes sense to be similar to
the game room in concept (i.e., a 'dead wire' run from the office to the
garage).

> I would still suggest running 2 cables.

I have no problem running two cables - so - I won't consider doubling up
anymore. I have three times more cat5e cable than I need anyway. And,
these pictures of the crawl space show I have plenty of room.

I just need to drill a bigger hole! :)

Picture of crawl space view up into the floor of the office
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223362/img/7223362.jpeg
Picture of entrance hole in the wall of the office:
www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7212874/1024/Anonymous/cat5-questions.gif

Picture of crawl space view over to the game room (far end of house):
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223369/img/7223369.gif
Picture of hole in the wall of the game room:
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223279/img/7223279.gif

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Incidentally, I've found a LAN cable continuity tester especially useful
> for catching my wiring errors. <http://www.ebay.com/itm/220895828757>

Oh oh ...

I had already bought this tester at the same time as the cable (but I can
return it as I haven't opened it yet):
$80 + tax at Home Depot
Klein Tools "VDV Scout Pro Tester Kit, VDV501-809
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223573/img/7223573.gif

But, I like the price of your $15 tester MUCH BETTER!

[miso]

That would sure be a lot of breakers.

I vaguely remember (which makes it likely I'm wrong) that there is an
issue regarding running different phases in the same box unless it
really is 220.

You've probably seen large homes where they use multiple breaker boxes.
I assuming there is a price point where the second box saves enough wire
that it is worth the effort.

[miso]

> Being in the business, I have had more D-Link consumer equipment
> failures than any other brand. Their commercial grade stuff is so-so.
> The only one's I've used have failed within 5 years.
> I'm currently using an Airlink NIMO router in the basement of my 2
> storey house and the signal is useable throught the whole house and 15
> feet behind the house on the patio as well.

Is this the Airlink 101 stuff that Fry's practically gives away?

[miso]

My head is about to explode like that episode on Star Trek with Harry
Mud. Norman coordinate. Or maybe Nomad being confused about Kirk being
the creator.

I don't install enough wired system to be good at it. I get it working,
lose all knowledge, then relearn everything when someone begs me to hook
up a router.

I have the modem address at 192.168.1.254. The router is at
192.168.123.1. Hell if I recall why I had to set them up as totally
different networks, other than I had conflict otherwise. The modem is an
2wire used commonly on AT&T bought off of Craigslist. My ISP sold me
some POS that would lock up. [Asking for a new modem got me a new POS
that was worse than the first, plus a year's lock in.] Say what you want
about 2wire gear, it never locks up for me. It also detected the double
NAT, bitched at me, turned off it's firewall and DMZed to my router. I
was both dissed and pleased at the same time. The thought of having to
make it all work again is what I suppose keeps me from replacing the
flaky Linksys router.

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:04:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> It would easier if you did the necessary documentation

Taking all the advice into account (much appreciated!) ...

How does this proposed diagram look?
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223906/640/7223906.jpg

> it's difficult to offer advice when you severely limit
> your descriptions. I like numbers. Model numbers, distances,
> sizes, lengths, distances, heights, and all the other stuff it takes to
> make real calculations.

Understood.

Given the diagram referenced above, how do these numbers look?

- WISP provider antenna is on the next ridge, 2000 feet line of sight away
- WISP requests I set the radio to bridge mode (Santa Cruz Mountains)
- WISP asks me to set it to a given 10.0.x.y IP address
- WISP asks me to set broadband router IP (WRT54G) to 10.0.x.y+1
- I don't really understand WISP provider's suggestions - but will comply
- Cable is 500' of cat5e 4pr 24AWG Solid Tan CMR CMX Outdoor RoHS
- Antenna is 19 dBi planar with N female connector
- Radio is Ubiquiti Bullet M2 with N male connector (mounted on antenna!)
- Antenna is 13 feet off the ground on a steel pole set in concrete
- Cat5e cable is ~100 foot run (to be buried) from radio to garage
- Angled & tubed hole is planned; drip loop on outside is planned
- Extra coil of cable on inside garage wall is planned
- 15 volt Ubiquiti POE is planned to be mounted in the garage
- From garage, cat5e cable enters crawl space & up to office (~25 feet)
- Wall plate definitely on office wall (probably 3 jacks will be used)
- Jumper from wall plate to the Linksys WRT54G router input port
- Output from WRT54G goes back to another jack in the wall plate
- That jack is wired ~25 feet back down the crawl space to the game room
- At the game room, is another wall jack
- A jumper tethers the wall jack to the Wii gaming console
- Optionally, the garage is similarly tied to the third jack in the office

See proposed diagram here:
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223906/640/7223906.jpg

[Chuck Banshee]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 05:30:21 +0000, Chuck Banshee wrote:

> Here, to help, are 6 pictures uploaded to simplify descriptions:

Since I added more pictures to answer questions, here's the set:

Diagram of proposed setup (based on everyone's advice!)
* http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223906/img/7223906.jpg

WISP antenna pointed at the next ridge about 2000 feet away:
* http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223272/img/7223272.gif

Temporary "bucket router" to bring signal into house wirelessly:
* http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223356/img/7223356.gif

Crawl space view up into the floor of the office (center of house):

* http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223362/img/7223362.jpeg

Crawl space view over to the game room (far end of house):

* http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223369/img/7223369.gif

Entry point at the office (where the office jack will be placed):

* www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7212874/1024/Anonymous/cat5-questions.gif

Entry point of the game room with box of cable proposed:
* http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223279/img/7223279.gif

Klein Tools $80 cable tester bought from Home Depot (unopened as yet):
* http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223279/img/7223279.gif

[Chuck Banshee]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:28:22 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> use anti-seize grease on the threaded pipe mast.

That's a GREAT idea!

I assembled the mast with water pipe so that I could disassemble it at
will; but I hadn't thought about the gray anti-seize paste idea!

> What are the wall tiles made from?

You are right that it's definitely floor tile (which feels like a stone
of some sort) that is on top of an existing wall!

I think it's a remodel where they had left-over floor tiles so they put
it on the wall (for some whacko reason).

The wall-within-a-wall actually isn't a problem since I'll just drill
through the inside wall (I have a six-foot long drill bit!) to easily get
to the crawl space behind it - but it 'was' a surprise to see a second
wall a two-by-four's width inside of the outside wall.

Here is another picture:
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223279/img/7223279.gif

[Chuck Banshee]

Thanks for all the advice!

Previously, I posted the wrong URL to the Klein tools so here's the
correction with the photos:

1. Diagram of proposed setup (based on everyone's advice!)
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223906/img/7223906.jpg

2. WISP antenna pointed at the next ridge about 2000 feet away:
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223272/img/7223272.gif

3. Temporary "bucket router" to bring signal into house wirelessly:
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223356/img/7223356.gif

4. Crawl space view up into the floor of the office (center of house):
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223362/img/7223362.jpeg

5. Crawl space view over to the game room (far end of house):
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223369/img/7223369.gif

6. Entry point at the office (where the office jack will be placed):
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/7224156/img/7224156.gif

7. Entry point of the game room with box of cable proposed:
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223279/img/7223279.gif

8. Klein Tools $80 cable tester bought from Home Depot (unopened as yet):
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/7223573/img/7223573.gif

At this point, my WISP provider is asking me to set the radio in "bridge"
mode with a certain 10.x.y.z IP address and then to set my broadband
router to +1 that IP address.

So, that's my next step. If that works (it didn't when I tried it
earlier), then I will begin the permanent wiring (based on all your
wonderful inputs).

This is a great team - special thanks to the key posters on
alt.internet.wireless (Jeff, miso, clare, Char, Charlie, Stephen, krw, et
al) and alt.home.repair (trader4, Oren, willshak, et al).

You guys make the USENET work in ways the web can't compete with!

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Dec 25, 1:31 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 05:56:53 -0800 (PST), "trad...@optonline.net"
>
> <trad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >To the points you've already covered, I'd add the issue of
> >security.
>
> Cringe.  I promised myself that I would not get involved in any more
> security discussions.  However, since this is a holiday...
>
> >That's one more layer of stuff to deal with for
> >wirless that you don't have to worry about with wired.  If
> >you have no security, then anyone within range can access
> >your network.  If you use encryption, not only does it
> >usually impact performance, but it also adds another
> >issue everytime you add or replace a device on the
> >network.  Add a Tivo or PC and now you have to remember
> >and find the encryption key.  Sounds easy, but I've seen
> >folks who spent hours trying to find the key,
> >get it entered correctly, etc.
>
> The real problem with Wi-Fi security is the shared key.  All wireless
> clients on your network use the same shared key.  If the key is
> compromised, so is the entire network.  There are complex ways to
> sniff the traffic and recover the WEP/WPA key, but it's much easier to
> simply borrow a laptop on the network, and recover a hashed key from
> the registry:
> <http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wireless_key.html>
> In other words, the very concept of a shared key is lacking.
>
> What's needed is a one time key, which does not need to be remembered.
> This is accomplished with WPA-RADIUS.  The user is presented with a
> unique per-user login and password.  The RADIUS server then delivers a
> one-time, per session, and unique key.  You could sniff the key, but
> it would only be good for that session.  Few home networks offer this
> level of key management, although it's common in corporate networks.
>
> >With wired I can do a 1 gig Ethernet connection that is
> >reliable and inherrently secure.  High end wireless routers,
> >ie 802.11N  that are "gigabit"
> >actually only support that rate on the wired connections.
> >For wireless the theoretical data rate is 300Mbits.
>
> Chuckle.  I've been tempted to offer a prize to anyone that can
> demonstrate a streaming wireless connection that will do 300Mbits.  I
> know that it's been done in the lab (controlled environment) and with
> dual band channel bonding, but I seriously doubt it can be done in the
> presence of interference and uncontrolled reflections.  The only
> reason manufacturers offer gigabit ethernet ports is that they would
> look rather foolish offering 100Mbits/sec ports on a router
> theoretically capable of 300Mbits/sec wireless.
>
> As for wired being more secure, I beg to differ.  I have a small
> collection of ethernet taps, that I use to sniff traffic for network
> troubleshooting.  If I wanted to sniff your network, I would install
> one between your broadband connection and router.  Taping a single
> ethernet LAN port won't work because it will only see traffic on that
> port and broadcast traffic.
> <http://www.netoptics.com/products/network-taps>

No question that wired can be compromised too. But installing
a tap in a wired line is IMO a big step beyond connecting to
a wireless LAN. If you put up a wireless LAN with no security
enabled, it can be accessed by anyone within the wireless
range. Like the kid in the apartment next door. For that kid
to install a tap would not only require a lot more effort, but
I think in most hackers minds, actually attaching something
to someone's network is something they would not do for
a variety of reasons. Being a physical thing, if found,
there's direct evidence of tapping, which everyone knows is
a crime and more likely to get police attention. Also, while
it's not true, folks have a sense that anything they can
connect to wirelessly is open territory.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Dec 25, 10:48 pm, Chuck Banshee <chuckbans...@private.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:25:33 -0800, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> > I'd do a run straight from the antenna
> > to a suitable location for the wireless router
> > which sounds like the office.
> > Then I'd do any wired runs that are practical from the router.
>
> That was the original plan.
>
> > Typical router supports 4 wired connections.
> > Do you need more than that?
>
> Nope.
>
> > If you want 3 or 4 in the game room, then I'd put a switch there.
>
> I only need ONE in the game room.
>
> What you are saying hits on the original design objective.
> I wish my command of English were better because I confused everyone (I
> think) because I'm confused HOW to wire from the router to the game room
> in this scenario.
>
> Is this the correct scenario for the sum total of the house wiring?
> 1. Cat5 cable enters house at lowered garage at the near end of the house
> 2. Cat5 continues into crawl space & into office floor in house center
> 3. Cat5 ends at a single female RJ45 in the (centrally located) office
> 4. Another cat5 cable starts at another single RJ45 in the office wall
> 5. That (inactive) cat5 goes down into the crawl space to the game room
> 6. That (inactive) cat5 ends at a single RJ45 jack in the game room
>
> If that is the correct wiring sequence, then I can do that relatively
> easily.
>
> Now comes the active connections.
>
> In the office - this is what I was planning:
> a) The POE sits in the office, one end connected to the wall plate.
> b) The other end of the POE connects to the Linksys WRT54G broadband
> wireless router (which also has four LAN ports in the back)
> c) One LAN port of the WRT54G goes to the desktop computer
> d) Another LAN port of the WRT54G goes to the Belkin VOIP desktop phone
>
> At this point, everything but the game room is now working.
> The problem is that the game room is too far away for a good signal out
> of the WRT54G.
>
> I have two options (I think) for the 'game room' at the far end of the
> house:
> I. Add a wireless "repeater" of some sort (the purchase & setup of which
> I am unfamiliar)
> II. Add a cabled connection

Why do you have to add another cable connection between the wireless
router
in the office and the game room? In your house wiring plan above you
clearly stated that you were installing that wiring. Otherwise what
you've layed out makes sense to me.

>
> THIS IS THE PART THAT WAS CONFUSING ME IN THE BEGINNING:
>
> If I go with the cabled connection to the game room, is it 'this' simple?
> A. I attach a jumper from the LAN port on the back of the WRT54G to the
> second office wall plate
> ...(this 2nd office wall plate is just a connection to the game room wall
> plate through the crawl space)
> B. I attach a jumper from the game room wall plate to the Wii
>
> My original (I agree confused) question was: Is it 'that' simple to add
> the game room as a wired connection?

Yes!

>
> NOTE: It seems weird to me to have a 'dead' wire simply going from the
> office wall plate to the game room wall plate.

Now we're back to confusion land again. The line isn't dead if you're
using it to connect from a port on the wireless router to an X box in
the game room.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Dec 25, 10:52 pm, Chuck Banshee <chuckbans...@private.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:25:33 -0800, trad...@optonline.net wrote:

> > Only other issues I'd be concerned with is that the wire used for the
> > low voltage power is of sufficient gauge for the length.
>
> The salmon colored Home Depot outdoor-rated solid conductor cat5 cable
> ($75 for 500 feet) is 24 AWG.
>
> I'm guessing it's ~100 feet to the office in the center of the house
> (including zig zags inherent in routing the wire).

24 gauge wire has a resistance of 2.6 ohms. If the eqpt at the
far end is pulling 1 amp, you'd have a voltage drop of 2.6 volts,
meaning your 15 volt source delivers 12.4 volts, which should
still be OK. If it's powered
from a typical wallwart power supply, I doubt it's anywhere near
1 amp so you should be fine. The label will tell you what
the actual rating is


>
> The POE is 15 volts (but I have no problem buying a higher-voltage POE if
> that is what is needed).
>

That's one thing you don't want to do!



> I guess I 'could' go up in size to 23 AWG cat5 cable - but the initial
> comments intimated this gauge solid wire should be find for three times
> the distance I'm calculating. (I think.)

Check the power supply and it's probably rated at a couple hundered
milliamps at most and you have no problem to worry about.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Dec 25, 10:01 pm, Chuck Banshee <chuckbans...@private.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:01:15 -0800, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> > Another issue I'd be concerned about is lightning protection. Since the
> > antenna is outside, I'd make sure the mast is directly grounded and I'd
> > also put some kind of surge protection on the wires entering the house.
>
> Oh oh. I thought that by virtue of the fact the steel mast is stuck into
> the ground that it was 'protected' from lightning.

Most of the antennas out there that are installed on a metal
pole in the ground probably rely on the above. If the pole goes
4 ft into reasonable soil that's probably good enough. If
you want really sound protection then a real ground rod
driven into the earth and connected to the mast would be
additional safety. The one thing you don't want is a metal
mast on say a roof that is not earthed at all.




>
> What kind of surge protection goes on a cat5 cable?

Here's one example:

http://metrix.net/cat-5-lightning-arrestor-p-23.html

Google is your friend.

Also, looks like you may have found a reason to put a connection in
the line where it enters the house.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:54:37 -0800, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>I vaguely remember (which makes it likely I'm wrong) that there is an
>issue regarding running different phases in the same box unless it
>really is 220.

Yep. A simple ferrite xformer between phases solves that problem.
<http://www.smarthome.com/_/Troubleshooting_Training/Phase_Coupler/X10_Problem_Solvers/_/t/2Q9/1TP/nav.aspx>

>You've probably seen large homes where they use multiple breaker boxes.
>I assuming there is a price point where the second box saves enough wire
>that it is worth the effort.

It has nothing to do with the breaker box. As long as they are fed by
the same transformer on the pole, it works.

Another method is the relatively new Z-wave 900Mhz devices. Whatever
works, the idea is to avoid installing new wiring with the home alarm
and monitor system. For example, this DIY store offers 3 types of
alarm systems; wired, wireless, and hybrid.
<http://www.youralarmstore.com>

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 00:14:44 -0800, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>My head is about to explode like that episode on Star Trek with Harry
>Mud. Norman coordinate. Or maybe Nomad being confused about Kirk being
>the creator.

A loaf of bread should be eaten one slice at a time. Trying to
swallow the whole loaf in one gulp doesn't work.

>I have the modem address at 192.168.1.254. The router is at
>192.168.123.1. Hell if I recall why I had to set them up as totally
>different networks, other than I had conflict otherwise.

That's generally a good idea to:
1. Avoid being unable to access the DSL modem diagnostics if the DHCP
server in the router assigns the same IP to some computah.
2. Being able to glue two networks together through a VPN. If they
were both on the same Class C network (192.168.pick-a-number.xxx),
then there's a chance of IP address duplication.

>The modem is an
>2wire used commonly on AT&T bought off of Craigslist.

Ummm... 2 wire doesn't make any DSL modems. They make combination DSL
modem/routers.

My guess(tm) is that would be a 2701HG-B. There's a fair chance you
have one with a marginal power supply. See:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/repair/2Wire-power-supply.jpg>
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/repair/2Wire-power-supplies.jpg>
It also doesn't have any way to save the setup, not remote admin, and
some features disabled by AT&T.

>My ISP sold me
>some POS that would lock up. [Asking for a new modem got me a new POS
>that was worse than the first, plus a year's lock in.]

ISP's sell what they can support.

>Say what you want
>about 2wire gear, it never locks up for me.

I've seen all kinds of bizarre failures that I originally attributed
to the 2wire modem/router. I eventually discovered it was the power
supply.

>It also detected the double
>NAT, bitched at me, turned off it's firewall and DMZed to my router. I
>was both dissed and pleased at the same time. The thought of having to
>make it all work again is what I suppose keeps me from replacing the
>flaky Linksys router.

You don't seem to have much luck buying hardware. I can sympathize,
but I suspect your search for the ultimate reliable router is an
exercise in futility. I haven't seen one yet that I can't kill with
various activities. For a while, opening too many streams would kill
off those not designed for BitTorrent. Others will blow up with too
much outgoing bandwidth for file sharing. Still other would die on
wireless as standards evolved and were debugged. All I can suggest is
that you keep is simple. Avoid features that you'll never use. Also
buy from a vendor that updates the firmware for their products that
they no longer sell. That eliminates 2wire, Belkin, and possibly
DLink.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:11:09 -0800, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>On 12/25/2011 7:57 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:05:34 -0800, miso<mi...@sushi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding code, what cities have
>>> inspection of data cables as part of the building inspection process.
>>
>> In California, all the cities and counties have low voltage wiring
>> inspections as part of code compliance. In most cases, they simply
>> require compliance to the latest NEC wiring codes. They may add their
>> own details, but the basic requirements will need to be met.
>> Incidentally, the Peoples Republic of Santa Cruz requires a permit for
>> any construction costing over $500.
>>
>>> Now I can see dumb ass stuff like running data and mains in the same
>>> conduit producing an epic fail. But poor data wiring practices?
>>
>> It's not the wiring that's the problem. It's how it's mounted and
>> what it's made from. For example, you need to run plenum cable
>> through air spaces. Plenum cable does not generate much smoke and
>> will therefore not asphixiate fire fighters. Proper support and using
>> riser cable for long vertical runs is simply best practices to prevent
>> the wire falling or breaking under its own weight.
>>
>> Try this quiz for practice:
>> <http://ecmweb.com/nec/whats_wrong_here/whats_wrong_122211/>
>> <http://ecmweb.com/nec/whats_wrong_here/whats_wrong_here_20100701/>
>> Plenty more:
>> <http://ecmweb.com/nec/whats_wrong_here/>
>>
>>> So I can see a code for everything, but how about an inspection for
>>> everything?
>>
>> From my limited and somewhat dated experience, the inspector doesn't
>> care much about sloppy LAN wiring. He's probably a former electrician
>> or contractor and doesn't know much about LAN wiring anyway. He does
>> care that the low voltage wiring is at least 2" away from AC power,
>> that it doesn't share any wall outlet boxes, and that it's not running
>> high currents through the cabling. Incidentally, some IEEE spec
>> recommends 6" for 120vac and 12" for 240vac. Where there are few
>> cables, the inspection is rather superficial. Where there's a large
>> number of cables (hospital, corporate, data center, etc), the
>> inspections are more thorough.
>>
>I can certainly believe the common box issue. Well separated boxes would
>never pass muster with the lady of the house. Bad enough they try to
>block outlets with furniture. Your suggestion of wiring two walls on

>either side of the door is a good one. Almost any wire in a room can be

>tolerated except if it crosses a door.

>
>Years ago I took a structured wiring "class" at CES, just to see what
>was happening. This was before the WWW was cranking at 11, though it
>existed. They suggested two networks per room. I could never get a
>reasonable explanation for why this was a good idea. Not on different
>walls, but two networks to the same outlet. Like the person saw it done,
>but didn't really know why himself. Of course there is no shortage of
>space on the wall outlet plate for multiple RJ45.
>

>That was where I learned nearly everyone in the class was an ex-alarm
>installer. Oy!

At the insurance office we have 2 separate networks to each endpoint
- one for data, and one for voip. It was originally wired with 3 - the
third being POTS - which we eliminated