Re: [Discuss] Future-proofing a house for networking -- what to run?

[grg]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:52:36AM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> I know all that -- I was asking for what would be "beyond CAT6a".  It
> sounds like maybe fiber, but I think I've been convinced that I wont
> need it, at least not to each drop.

The literal answer is cat.8 for 40GBASE-T.
RJ45, backwards compatible with cat6a, cat6, cat5e, ...

> So...  My current thinking is 1 RG6 and 3 or 4 CAT6a, which leaves me 1

If you really want to be future-proof, run cat8 where you're planning cat6a
and use that backwards compatibility.

Future-proofing is always going to be the expensive option...


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 01:19:57PM -0400, Bill Ricker wrote:
> So the only truly future-proof solutions are
> (a) admit defeat, we'll have visible cables or stick-on cable-races
> again within 5 years of putting on the wallboard;

Possibly, and I agree with your point that at some point whatever you do
will become so obsolete that you'll install something different, but this
specific time frame of 5 years seems too short.  Do you really think you'll
be running a local-area data interface exceeding 40gbit in 5 years?

if you were future-proofing a decade ago you would have run cat6 and
plugged it into 10GBASE-T, which is still today pretty darn good - I'd
wager most of us aren't running 10gbit interfaces at home yet.  I'm
guessing cat6 will have something more like a 20-year or even 25-year
lifespan before obsolescence.


> Does Code there require _steel_ conduit for low-voltage DATA cables, or can
> you use certain plastics?
> (Plastics are nasty when it burns, but w/o power lines inside, fire is
> coming from
> outside; by the time the fire gets to it, it's pretty much over
> already. Allowed for plumbing, so why not for data?)

There's an idea: have the plumber install "drains" running from one junction
box to another ;)


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 01:00:46PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> > But with Cat6 throughout I can always add additional APs wherever I might
> > need them.  :)
> 
> I do believe that my suggestion, going wireless, is the one you
> "completely disagree" with.

What I understood Derek to be "completely disagree"ing with was going ONLY
wireless for the whole house, NO data wires in the house, as in "Wires for
data are the past".  I don't think he disagrees with having a wifi portion
of his network and even running many devices solely over it, further
evidenced by his reply which you quote here about adding APs in his house.
His question in this thread is specifically about the wired portion of his
network (such as the data wires going into each AP).


--grg
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Future-proofing a house for networking -- what to run?

[Richard Pieri]

On 9/12/2017 1:19 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
> I'm glad to hear there's someone even slower to adopt real broadband
> than I was.

I have real broadband: FiOS, 50/50Mbps. Had it since it became available
in my neighborhood. It's just that the slowest WiFi devices I have are
802.11g. The others are 802.11n or .11ac. It doesn't much matter how
much more bandwidth wired 1-Gig offers when that extra bandwidth can't
be utilized.

-- 
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Future-proofing a house for networking -- what to run?

[Bill Ricker]

I'm hoping to build a retirement house in the next few years so this
is a good think exercise for me too.

I think we're pretty much agreed that any wire we install today will
be outmoded within a decade.
Best fibre available, maybe not but multiplexing all future services
over a single strand may be awkward, lots of replacing terminations to
multiplex old and new services, what a mess.

So the only truly future-proof solutions are
(a) admit defeat, we'll have visible cables or stick-on cable-races
again within 5 years of putting on the wallboard;
(b) commit to wireless last 10' to 50' for almost eveything (and
willing to drill new holes for exceptions);  or
(c) commit to easy access to upgrade "wires" and add fibres as needed.
The (b) access could be
 - invisible hinges on the baseboards,
 - cable trays running around the ceiling,
 - or conduits with pull-strings in every wall, or
 - Combination: utility boxes in floor to basement and/or ceiling to
attic, cable-trays in attic and basement, and a conduit with
pull-string from attic to basement. (Fine if max 2 stories finished
with full unfinished basement and attic . Awkward for 3story townhouse
with crawlspaces or less top & bottom.)

Why is conduit everywhere not an option?
Cost of material?  Time-consuming bending & fitting?
Does Code there require _steel_ conduit for low-voltage DATA cables, or can
you use certain plastics?
(Plastics are nasty when it burns, but w/o power lines inside, fire is
coming from
outside; by the time the fire gets to it, it's pretty much over
already. Allowed for plumbing, so why not for data?)

> ISP bandwidth being less than local WiFi

I'm glad to hear there's someone even slower to adopt real broadband than I was.

However, there are uses for fast bandwidth in-house, if you have more
than one device and particularly more than one peoples.
I will shortly sync my laptop with my desktop today.
Switched wired is very good for that. Files going to/from SSD fly.
Files going spinning rust to spinning rust are not limited by the
network, and are not congesting the WiFi and thus not contesting /
interrupting other peoples' YouTubes.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Future-proofing a house for networking -- what to run?

[Richard Pieri]

On 9/12/2017 12:05 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> No, I'm pointing out that wires are better than Wifi by showing actual
> capabilities.  If you had a wired network then you'd have that capability
> too.  It's just a fact that wired networks are more capable than wireless.

I do have a 1-Gig wired network. I used to have a 100Mbit wired network.

It is useless for my Android tablets. It is useless for my Kobo and my
Kindle. It is useless for my Vita, my PSP and my 3DS. None of these have
wired networking capabilities.

It is not better than wireless for my Clevo and Surface Pro and PS4
which are constrained by ISP bandwidth being less than local WiFi
bandwidth. NB: I do use the wired network with a USB dongle when I make
Clonezilla snapshots of the Clevo and Surface but those are not day to
day usage.

It is necessary for my DiskStation because it has no wireless capabilities.

For about a dozen devices the wired network is necessary for 1, better
than break even for 2 under special circumstances but otherwise break
even, break even for 1 all the time, and a non-starter for everything else.


> Wired ethernet over twisted pair has not significantly changed in 25
> years. [snip]

Actually, yes, it has. The number of pairs hasn't changed but the
composition of the pairs has in order to handle the progressive
increases in signal frequencies.

Yes, your ThinkPad has wired Ethernet. It's a business class device.
Yes, your "smart" TVs have wired Ethernet. They do no better with it
than they do with WiFi because the bandwidth requirements for MPEG-4
video and audio are well within WiFi capabilities. Your Macs are great
examples of the direction the world is going: no wires.


> But with Cat6 throughout I can always add additional APs wherever I might
> need them.  :)

I do believe that my suggestion, going wireless, is the one you
"completely disagree" with.

-- 
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Future-proofing a house for networking -- what to run?

[Derek Atkins]

Rich,

On Tue, September 12, 2017 11:42 am, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 9/12/2017 10:52 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> I am sorry, but I completely disagree.  Even with modern Wifi, I can get
>> much better throughput using physical wires if for no other reason than
>> each link can be switched and therefore isn't "shared".  With Wifi,
>> every device is sharing the medium.  I.e., I can get 20-30Gbps aggregate
>> across my 1Gbps physical network, versus maybe 1.2Gbps across my 1200AC
>> Wifi.  And let's not even start with interference from my neighbors!
>
> All true, but you're not making an argument about future-proofing.
> You're boasting about how fast your network is.

No, I'm pointing out that wires are better than Wifi by showing actual
capabilities.  If you had a wired network then you'd have that capability
too.  It's just a fact that wired networks are more capable than wireless.

> Wires aren't forever. They fail. They're supplanted by new standards.
> They're not even available on the most common devices today. Running
> wires is not future-proofing. It's future-obsolescence.

Wired ethernet over twisted pair has not significantly changed in 25
years.  The capabilities of the technology has changed (10, 100, 1G) but
the underlying physical wires haven't (generally).  Sure, there's the
update from Cat3 to Cat5 to Cat5e to Cat6, but Cat5e is still a
20-year-old tech.  Had you installed Cat5e 20 years ago you'd still be in
fine shape today.

My new thinkpad, just acquired a couple months ago, still has an RJ45
jack.  Sure, the two Macs in the house don't come with that, although we
have the lightning adapter for my wife.  All our "smart" TVs have RJ45. 
Desktop and Server hardware has RJ45.

Will they still have RJ45 in another 10-20 years?  I certainly don't see
it going away from many of the devices, although it's possible that fewer
laptops will come with ethernet.

But with Cat6 throughout I can always add additional APs wherever I might
need them.  :)

> Rich P.

-derek

-- 
   Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
   de...@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com
   Computer and Internet Security Consultant

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Future-proofing a house for networking -- what to run?

[Richard Pieri]

On 9/12/2017 10:52 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> I am sorry, but I completely disagree.  Even with modern Wifi, I can get
> much better throughput using physical wires if for no other reason than
> each link can be switched and therefore isn't "shared".  With Wifi,
> every device is sharing the medium.  I.e., I can get 20-30Gbps aggregate
> across my 1Gbps physical network, versus maybe 1.2Gbps across my 1200AC
> Wifi.  And let's not even start with interference from my neighbors!

All true, but you're not making an argument about future-proofing.
You're boasting about how fast your network is.

Wires aren't forever. They fail. They're supplanted by new standards.
They're not even available on the most common devices today. Running
wires is not future-proofing. It's future-obsolescence.

-- 
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Future-proofing a house for networking -- what to run?

[Shirley Márquez Dúlcey]

> Indeed.  I'm thinking not just IP, but also possibly HDBaseT.  I'm going
> to run separate Cat5e for my PoE security cameras (which only need 100mbps).

If you're doing it yourself the wire cost matters. If somebody else is
doing it, the wire cost is insignificant compared to the labor cost so
you might as well go with Cat6a throughout.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Future-proofing a house for networking -- what to run?

[Derek Atkins]

Kent,

Kent Borg  writes:

> Two suggestions.
>
> Short term: Look at your current needs and extrapolate from
> there. Ethernet cables can be used for unrelated low-voltage signaling
> or power, too. (Thermostat, for example. Or power to gizmos that
> normally require a wallwart can maybe be installed without the power
> supply being ugly and near.)

Indeed.  I'm thinking not just IP, but also possibly HDBaseT.  I'm going
to run separate Cat5e for my PoE security cameras (which only need 100mbps).

> Long term: You can't anticipate things that don't exist, so see if you
> can give yourself future access to the sealed up walls. Conduit with
> string in it is good. Extra large conduit is good if that is
> possible. Lots of extra empty "outlet" boxes are good. If you can
> leave yourself access to a cable tray in your basement or attic or
> maybe in your wall (removable baseboard or ceiling molding?) then you
> can reconfigure pretty easily.

I plan to run some conduit across major sections, but not necessarily to
each drop.  I don't know if "easily removed baseboards" will go over
well with the WAF.  But I'll keep it in mind.

> -kb
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>

-- 
   Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
   de...@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com
   Computer and Internet Security Consultant
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Future-proofing a house for networking -- what to run?

[Derek Atkins]

Richard Pieri  writes:

> On 9/11/2017 9:44 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> If you had the ability to future-proof your house (imagine open studs,
>> so you could run anything you wanted), what would you run.  Assume a max
>> of 6 cables per drop?
>
> I wouldn't. Wires for data are the past, not the future, for consumer
> applications. Instead I would update the electrical wiring. Start with a

I am sorry, but I completely disagree.  Even with modern Wifi, I can get
much better throughput using physical wires if for no other reason than
each link can be switched and therefore isn't "shared".  With Wifi,
every device is sharing the medium.  I.e., I can get 20-30Gbps aggregate
across my 1Gbps physical network, versus maybe 1.2Gbps across my 1200AC
Wifi.  And let's not even start with interference from my neighbors!

> circuit breaker panel upgrade to at least include a whole residence
> surge protector. Each room gets at least one easily accessible box of
> power outlets which includes USB fast charge power. Each room also gets
> at least one near-ceiling power outlet box for WiFi repeaters or
> resonant power stations so that they can be mounted clear of furniture
> with a minimum of visible power cables.

I know all that -- I was asking for what would be "beyond CAT6a".  It
sounds like maybe fiber, but I think I've been convinced that I wont
need it, at least not to each drop.

> But if you're still dead-set on running data wires then don't run wires.
> Run conduit with pull strings so you can easily install whatever you
> need and remove it later when you decide to replace it.

As I said, I can't run conduit to every drop, so that's just out of the
question.  I can run conduit for some major cross-runs, or from basement
to attic, but not to every drop.

So...  My current thinking is 1 RG6 and 3 or 4 CAT6a, which leaves me 1
or 2 potential keystone spots.  I suppose I could 1 + 3 and use a 4-spot
keystone vs. a 6-spot keystone.  I'll need to decide.  Honestly I'd like
to have 4 cat6a drops, which means I still have 1 spot and not sure how
to fill it.

Suggestions?

-derek

-- 
   Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
   de...@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com
   Computer and Internet Security Consultant
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss