> They can do it in some cases, but they technically were not designed for it. > Technically the chart is correct.
IEEE doesn't make the official standards all that easy to cite, but some stand ins.... >From Cisco's page on 1000Base-T: " As a mark of that leadership, Cisco is extending its breadth of Gigabit product support to include the latest Ethernet application: 1000BASE-T or Gigabit on copper cabling. 1000BASE-T specifies Gigabit Ethernet operation over the Category 5 cabling systems installed according to the specifications of ANSI/TIA/EIA-568A (1995). 1000BASE-T also supports 1000 Mbps operation over the newest emerging EIA/TIA cabling specifications Category 5e. " http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk214/tech_digest09186a0080091a86.html And Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabit_Ethernet#1000BASE-T CAT5 was and is the minimum for 1000Base-T, 5e tightened some crosstalk specs and is all you'll be able to find today. Note that the emerging 2.5 gig and 5 gig Ethernet specs are based around CAT5e, which makes CAT6 even less useful in the vast majority of cases. http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collateral/enterprise-networks/catalyst-multigigabit-switching/multigigabit-ethernet-technology.pdf ----- Original Message ----- > You can run gig on CAT5 (not CAT5E) the same that you can run 100Mbs on CAT > 3. > They can do it in some cases, but they technically were not designed for it. > Technically the chart is correct. > Mark Kent (MCP) > Sr. Desktop Systems Engineer > Computing & Technology Services - SUNY Buffalo State > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Joe Matuscak > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 2:26 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Cat5e or 6 for wifi > There's no good reason to use CAT6, unless you're really sure the runs are > under 55M > and you fantasize about running 10GbaseT. > Oh, and the chart is wrong about CAT5, it most definitely supports > 1000Base-T. > ----- Original Message ----- > > I can’t imagine how injectors could be a good idea, other than trying to > > save > > money in exchange for accepting complexity and unreliability. > > > I asked about length because unless it is 6a the potential for faster > > speeds > > later is limited. > > > From: [email protected] [ > > mailto:[email protected] > > ] On Behalf Of J- P > > > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 2:01 PM > > > To: NT > > > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] Cat5e or 6 for wifi > > > waiting for floor plans, no clue at this moment- > > > One thing i noticed, and I'm baffled by is that they are opting for 50 > > power > > injectors as opposed to using POE switches > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] Cat5e or 6 for wifi > > > Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:47:13 +0000 > > > How long are the runs, and how old is the building? > > > From: [email protected] [ > > mailto:[email protected] > > ] On Behalf Of J- P > > > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:44 PM > > > To: NT > > > Subject: [NTSysADM] Cat5e or 6 for wifi > > > Hi all, > > > I have project coming up for 50 ap deployments, and they are asking "do > > they > > really need cat6" > > > I guess the bulk of the budget is going to the AP's and are trying to save > > elsewhere. > > > you would think they wouldn't quibble over 2500 after spending 30k on AP's > > > This is for an elementary school > > > any thoughts > > > tia > > -- > Thanks, > Joe Matuscak | Director of Technology > Rohrer Corporation | Office: 330-335-1541 > 717 Seville Road | Wadsworth, Ohio 44281 > www.rohrer.com | A Better Package -- Thanks, Joe Matuscak | Director of Technology Rohrer Corporation | Office: 330-335-1541 717 Seville Road | Wadsworth, Ohio 44281 www.rohrer.com | A Better Package
