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

[Richard Pieri]

On 9/14/2017 11:32 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Except that if you have TRUE 802.11b devices, it will downgrade your
> 802.11g network completely to 11Mbps.

Not exactly. Each device transmits and receives at its full capability
up to the limits of the AP but 802.11b devices take much longer to
transmit and receive packets than 802.11g/n devices. That latency does
degrade faster devices' performance but it's not that bad. 802.11b is
not a problem at all for 5GHz WiFi devices. Devices operating at 5GHz
are unaffected by anything operating at 2.4Ghz.

IMO a more serious problem than throughput with 802.11b devices is that
they only do WEP. Isolating them on a DMZ with a dedicated access point
is a good idea and solves the throughput degradation problem as a bonus.

-- 
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?

[Richard Pieri]

On 9/14/2017 9:11 AM, grg wrote:
> Which spec are you referring to?  Please cite your source.

IEEE 802.3ab presentation from the IEEE. My Google-Fu is failing to find
it. Might be paywalled. :P

The spec hasn't changed since 1999 or so but the industry has defacto
standardized things like everything being full-duplex by default.


Anyway. I checked with the network admin at work. He didn't have
anything to say about Cat 5 or Cat 5e because it's obsolete at the
enterprise level but he did say that Cat 6e runs under 100m is more than
sufficient for anything you could do in a home. The only reason to go
with Cat 7 is boasting about having full 10-Gig Ethernet capability.

-- 
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]

Bill Horne  writes:

> Although _/some/_ edge devices, such as streaming video adapters or
> printers, are made for only WiFi connectivity, there are always other
> models which include Ethernet and/or USB connections, either with or
> without WiFi. "Future Proofing" includes avoiding future purchases, so
> I always recommend that edge devices have more than one method of LAN
> connection available.

My Roku had an RJ45.  My AppleTV has an RJ45.  My Printer has an RJ45.

Pretty much I can count the number of Wifi-only devices in my house on
one hand.

-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?

[Derek Atkins]

Richard Pieri  writes:

> On 9/13/2017 1:48 PM, Bill Horne wrote:
>> WiFi-only devices will require that the owner keep updating his 
>> equipment every time his ISP adopts a new WiFi standard. I feel that the 
>
> This has never been a requirement of 802.11 devices. My 802.11b and
> 802.11g devices still work with my 802.11n access point and I have no
> doubt that they will continue to work if and when I get an 802.11ac or
> more recent AP.

Except that if you have TRUE 802.11b devices, it will downgrade your
802.11g network completely to 11Mbps.

-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?

[Derek Atkins]

Richard Pieri  writes:

> On 9/13/2017 10:35 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> You seem to be assuming that all traffic crosses into your ISP.  While
>
> As a practical matter, the majority of my network traffic *does* cross
> into my ISP.

Thank you for incorrectly projecting your usage patterns onto me.

>> this may be true for your use case, it is certainly not the case for me.
>> I've got a MythTV setup, which means much of my streaming media is local
>> traffic.  I'd much rather use a wired/switched network for that than
>> pollute the shared wifi.
>
> 1080p video streams (MPEG-4) need about 5-8 Mbps burst bandwidth.

Again, thank you for making incorrect assumptions about the type of
video being tossed around.  My streams are more like 10-20Mbps each.
Just looking at one recording I see 14.5Mbps.

> Gigabit Ethernet has practical throughput about 300Mbps.

BZZT.  You're off by a factor of about 3.

>  So that stream uses about 5% of the available bandwidth at most.

Even at 20Mbps, it's really only using 2.2% of the available b/w.  At
14.4Mbps it's down to 1.6%.

>   Meanwhile, 802.11g
> (which I consider to be the least common denominator for WiFi today) can
> deliver 20-25Mbps which is more than enough for several simultaneous
> streams.

No, realistically it can only deliver 1.  That is not sufficient.

>  It's borderline for 4K but if you're doing 4K video then you've
> probably upgraded to at least 802.11n if not 802.11ac.
>
> Myth/Plex are not compelling reasons for wires.

Says you.

Listen, this back and forth with you is fruitless.  You're not going to
convince me to go without wires, and I'm clearly not going to convince
you that there are cases where wired networks are better.  So let's just
agree to disagree and then I can get input from other people with
insight into the best wired technologies to install.

Thanks,

-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?

[Robert Krawitz]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:11:36 -0400, grg wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:36:40PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
>> On 9/13/2017 10:13 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
>> > This is 1000Base-T, with standard cat 5e cable.  scp isn't much slower.
>> 
>> You're using full-duplex with Cat 5e? You're off spec. And now I'm
>> wondering if the data corruption problems you were having a few weeks
>> ago were a consequence of it.

No, I'm quite certain they aren't.  These problems exist with only one
machine (including using the same cable and NIC port as on another
machine that works fine), and I've seen them with loopback operation
also.  The nature of the failures -- aligned relative to a 64-byte
boundary -- are also not what I would expect to see in the case of bad
ethernet operation.  I would also expect TCP checksumming to catch
errors of this type.

> Which spec are you referring to?  Please cite your source.
>
> FWIW (some, but never the definitive answer) Wikipedia disagrees with you:
> "Each 1000BASE-T network segment can be a maximum length of 100 meters (330
> feet), and must use Category 5 cable or better (including Cat 5e and Cat 6)."
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabit_Ethernet#1000BASE-T
> So with 5e he's actually a grade above the minimum cat5.
> (Note the top of that article says that full duplex is used exclusively, so
> they're not talking about half duplex operation over cat5 or 5e or cat6.)
-- 
Robert Krawitz 

***  MIT Engineers   A Proud Tradition   http://mitathletics.com  ***
Member of the League for Programming Freedom  --  http://ProgFree.org
Project lead for Gutenprint   --http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Chuck Anderson]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:36:40PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 9/13/2017 10:13 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> > This is 1000Base-T, with standard cat 5e cable.  scp isn't much slower.
> 
> You're using full-duplex with Cat 5e? You're off spec. And now I'm
> wondering if the data corruption problems you were having a few weeks
> ago were a consequence of it.

No you're just wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_5_cable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabit_Ethernet#1000BASE-T

And no one uses 1000BASE-TX.  It is a dead technology.

1000BASE-T practically only runs full-duplex.  The half-duplex variant
is a dead technology.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[grg]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:36:40PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 9/13/2017 10:13 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> > This is 1000Base-T, with standard cat 5e cable.  scp isn't much slower.
> 
> You're using full-duplex with Cat 5e? You're off spec. And now I'm
> wondering if the data corruption problems you were having a few weeks
> ago were a consequence of it.

Which spec are you referring to?  Please cite your source.

FWIW (some, but never the definitive answer) Wikipedia disagrees with you:
"Each 1000BASE-T network segment can be a maximum length of 100 meters (330
feet), and must use Category 5 cable or better (including Cat 5e and Cat 6)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabit_Ethernet#1000BASE-T
So with 5e he's actually a grade above the minimum cat5.
(Note the top of that article says that full duplex is used exclusively, so
they're not talking about half duplex operation over cat5 or 5e or cat6.)

--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?

[Dan Ritter]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 09:39:02PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 9/13/2017 3:23 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > So, no, you don't need jumbo packets to get 900+Mb/s
> > out of your 1000Mb/s ethernet connection. That's through
> > a very boring Netgear $50 switch.
> 
> Information is missing.
> 
> 1000Base-T is 500Mbps each way (theoretical maximum), but it works with
> Cat 5e. You cannot get 900Mbps throughput with 1000Base-T. It's
> physically impossible. Real world throughput with file data is around
> the 300Mbps I previously cited.
> 
> 1000Base-TX is 1000Mbps each way (theoretical maximum), requires full
> duplex switches (I believe but don't quote me on that), and Cat 6 or Cat
> 7. You can get nearly 1000Mbps throughput with 1000Base-TX if your
> equipment meets all of these criteria. And the NICs involved have
> enterprise class features like all of the various CPU offloading
> capabilities which consumer grade equipment typically does not have.
> Again, since this is "future-proofing a house" and not a corporate data
> center I'm figuring a majority of the equipment in use is going to be
> consumer grade and not enterprise grade.

I just showed you measurements. One end is an AMD FX-4130 with a
Realtek 8168/8411 gig-e port, built-in to the motherboard. The
other end is an Intel G3258 with an Intel I218-V gig-e port,
also on the motherboard. They are connected via Cat5e cables to
a Netgear GS316, a 16 port gig-e switch that you can buy from
NewEgg for $60 now; it was on sale for $50 or so when I bought
it.

Transmission speed as measured by netperf is 930-940 Mb/s. The
MTU is 1500 -- I had it set at 7000 for some months, but it
caused problems with a new machine, so I sighed, backed off, and
did not notice any real-world difference.

Your "300Mb/s" is an artifact of your disk subsystems.

-dsr-

___
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 9/13/2017 10:13 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> This is 1000Base-T, with standard cat 5e cable.  scp isn't much slower.

You're using full-duplex with Cat 5e? You're off spec. And now I'm
wondering if the data corruption problems you were having a few weeks
ago were a consequence of it.

-- 
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?

[Robert Krawitz]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 21:39:02 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 9/13/2017 3:23 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:
>> I have a family of four, plus occasional guests. If I had every
>> device that could be connected to ethernet connected to wifi, 
>> I would spend all my time debugging wifi problems.
>
> Either you exaggerate or you've been doing very very wrong things
> because for example my brother has WiFi for his family plus guests and
> nobody there ever spends time debugging WiFi problems. While I don't
> have the numbers of users that they or you have I spend essentially zero
> time debugging WiFi problems and I've been almost completely wireless
> for 3, maybe 4 years now. The singular exception was when I was futzing
> around with my Raspberry Pi and discovering how awful the Linux WiFi
> tools are.
>
>> So, no, you don't need jumbo packets to get 900+Mb/s
>> out of your 1000Mb/s ethernet connection. That's through
>> a very boring Netgear $50 switch.
>
> Information is missing.
>
> 1000Base-T is 500Mbps each way (theoretical maximum), but it works with
> Cat 5e. You cannot get 900Mbps throughput with 1000Base-T. It's
> physically impossible. Real world throughput with file data is around
> the 300Mbps I previously cited.

You're wrong:

ftp> get Musopen-DVD.zip
local: Musopen-DVD.zip remote: Musopen-DVD.zip
229 Extended Passive mode OK (|||30016|)
150-Accepted data connection
150 2357995.9 kbytes to download
100% |***|  2302 MiB   96.71 MiB/s00:00 ETA
226-File successfully transferred
226 24.191 seconds (measured here), 95.19 Mbytes per second

This is 1000Base-T, with standard cat 5e cable.  scp isn't much slower.
-- 
Robert Krawitz 

***  MIT Engineers   A Proud Tradition   http://mitathletics.com  ***
Member of the League for Programming Freedom  --  http://ProgFree.org
Project lead for Gutenprint   --http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton
___
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 9/13/2017 3:49 PM, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote:
> Something that hasn't been noted is that, even in a wireless future,
> you need to feed data to the wireless devices and wires are the best
> way to do it. I need a WiFi access point on each floor to get good

I kinda did but in two pieces and I didn't connect the two: run conduit
with pull strings to near-ceiling work boxes where you would mount
access points. Then just pull what you need as you need it.

Given the premise of ripping out drywall I would suggest two boxes, one
for the data conduit and the other for power (Romex).

-- 
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?

[Richard Pieri]

On 9/13/2017 3:23 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:
> I have a family of four, plus occasional guests. If I had every
> device that could be connected to ethernet connected to wifi, 
> I would spend all my time debugging wifi problems.

Either you exaggerate or you've been doing very very wrong things
because for example my brother has WiFi for his family plus guests and
nobody there ever spends time debugging WiFi problems. While I don't
have the numbers of users that they or you have I spend essentially zero
time debugging WiFi problems and I've been almost completely wireless
for 3, maybe 4 years now. The singular exception was when I was futzing
around with my Raspberry Pi and discovering how awful the Linux WiFi
tools are.


> So, no, you don't need jumbo packets to get 900+Mb/s
> out of your 1000Mb/s ethernet connection. That's through
> a very boring Netgear $50 switch.

Information is missing.

1000Base-T is 500Mbps each way (theoretical maximum), but it works with
Cat 5e. You cannot get 900Mbps throughput with 1000Base-T. It's
physically impossible. Real world throughput with file data is around
the 300Mbps I previously cited.

1000Base-TX is 1000Mbps each way (theoretical maximum), requires full
duplex switches (I believe but don't quote me on that), and Cat 6 or Cat
7. You can get nearly 1000Mbps throughput with 1000Base-TX if your
equipment meets all of these criteria. And the NICs involved have
enterprise class features like all of the various CPU offloading
capabilities which consumer grade equipment typically does not have.
Again, since this is "future-proofing a house" and not a corporate data
center I'm figuring a majority of the equipment in use is going to be
consumer grade and not enterprise grade.


Also, Netgear may be boring but it's the best consumer grade networking
gear on the market.

-- 
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]

For me, it depends on the expected lifetime of the edge device. Right
now, for example, I don't expect any video streaming box to have a
lifetime of more than five years; by then it will be sufficiently
obsolete that it will need to be replaced. Future-proofing it isn't
important. The same applies to any smart features in TVs, disc
players, audio receivers, etc., except for very high end models that
might actually get updates.

Something that hasn't been noted is that, even in a wireless future,
you need to feed data to the wireless devices and wires are the best
way to do it. I need a WiFi access point on each floor to get good
signal quality throughout the house - plaster and lath soaks up RF -
so one of the purposes of the wires we put in the wall 15 years ago is
to feed the APs. We pulled Cat5e at the time which is good up to a
gigabit; right now I'm wishing we had pulled Cat6 but it wasn't yet
readily available when we did it. I may eventually have to pull some
better line to feed the switches and APs; the Cat5e wires will be good
enough for the end points for a while yet.

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Dan Ritter  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 02:36:51PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
>> On 9/13/2017 11:44 AM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
>> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:38:36 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
>> >> 1080p video streams (MPEG-4) need about 5-8 Mbps burst bandwidth.
>> >> Gigabit Ethernet has practical throughput about 300Mbps.
>> >
>> > ???  I routinely get over 100 MB/sec (>800 Mbps) transferring files --
>> > even with scp -- between systems with fast enough disks.
>>
>> So, yeah, whole-home wiring just doesn't make sense.
>
> You go tend to your knitting.
>
> I have a family of four, plus occasional guests. If I had every
> device that could be connected to ethernet connected to wifi,
> I would spend all my time debugging wifi problems.
>
> On a Saturday afternoon, it is not unusual to see:
>
> - one person watching NetFlix.
>
> - one person watching MythTV.
>
> - one person playing a video game while listening to music from
>   YouTube.
>
> - one person trying to get work done
>
> - a bunch of wifi devices chirping away at the internet, and
>
> - a couple of backups in progress.
>
> and as for jumbo packets:
>
> $  netperf -H splat -p 2 -l 30
> MIGRATED TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET
> to splat () port 0 AF_INET : demo
> Recv   SendSend
> Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
> Size   SizeSize Time Throughput
> bytes  bytes   bytessecs.10^6bits/sec
>
>  87380  16384  1638430.01 940.42
>
> $ ip l
> 2: eth0:  mtu 1500 qdisc
> fq_codel state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
>
>
> So, no, you don't need jumbo packets to get 900+Mb/s
> out of your 1000Mb/s ethernet connection. That's through
> a very boring Netgear $50 switch.
>
> -dsr-
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Dan Ritter]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 02:36:51PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 9/13/2017 11:44 AM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:38:36 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> >> 1080p video streams (MPEG-4) need about 5-8 Mbps burst bandwidth.
> >> Gigabit Ethernet has practical throughput about 300Mbps.
> > 
> > ???  I routinely get over 100 MB/sec (>800 Mbps) transferring files --
> > even with scp -- between systems with fast enough disks.
> 
> So, yeah, whole-home wiring just doesn't make sense.

You go tend to your knitting.

I have a family of four, plus occasional guests. If I had every
device that could be connected to ethernet connected to wifi, 
I would spend all my time debugging wifi problems.

On a Saturday afternoon, it is not unusual to see:

- one person watching NetFlix.

- one person watching MythTV.

- one person playing a video game while listening to music from
  YouTube.

- one person trying to get work done

- a bunch of wifi devices chirping away at the internet, and

- a couple of backups in progress.

and as for jumbo packets:

$  netperf -H splat -p 2 -l 30
MIGRATED TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET
to splat () port 0 AF_INET : demo
Recv   SendSend  
Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed  
Size   SizeSize Time Throughput  
bytes  bytes   bytessecs.10^6bits/sec  

 87380  16384  1638430.01 940.42

$ ip l
2: eth0:  mtu 1500 qdisc
fq_codel state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000


So, no, you don't need jumbo packets to get 900+Mb/s
out of your 1000Mb/s ethernet connection. That's through
a very boring Netgear $50 switch.

-dsr-
___
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 9/13/2017 1:48 PM, Bill Horne wrote:
> WiFi-only devices will require that the owner keep updating his 
> equipment every time his ISP adopts a new WiFi standard. I feel that the 

This has never been a requirement of 802.11 devices. My 802.11b and
802.11g devices still work with my 802.11n access point and I have no
doubt that they will continue to work if and when I get an 802.11ac or
more recent AP.

-- 
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?

[Robert Krawitz]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:36:51 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 9/13/2017 11:44 AM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:38:36 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
>>> 1080p video streams (MPEG-4) need about 5-8 Mbps burst bandwidth.
>>> Gigabit Ethernet has practical throughput about 300Mbps.
>> 
>> ???  I routinely get over 100 MB/sec (>800 Mbps) transferring files --
>> even with scp -- between systems with fast enough disks.
>
> If I'm not mistaken that's with jumbo frames enabled. Consumer NICs
> typically do not support jumbo frames. Regardless, if you're getting
> ~2.5 times my throughput estimate then your MythTV usage is consuming
> about 2% of your available bandwidth instead of my 5% estimate, so
> instead of wasting 95% of the network bandwidth by not using it you're
> wasting 98% of it.

This is a laptop (Dell Precision M6500) talking to the on-board NIC on
a consumer-grade motherboard.  According to ifconfig, it's using an
MTU of 1500 bytes.

This is not using MythTV; it's simply using scp or rsync to copy files
around.  Obviously I'm not doing that continuously, but when I'm
moving a lot of data (20-30 GB isn't uncommon), I want it to be fast.
WiFi is simply not efficient for that.

> If you were doing video editing then that would be a different story.
> This is large(ish) scale bulk data transfers where high sustained
> throughput is necessary. But then, you would do this kind of wiring in a
> studio environment, not the entire residence.
>
> So, yeah, whole-home wiring just doesn't make sense.
-- 
Robert Krawitz 

***  MIT Engineers   A Proud Tradition   http://mitathletics.com  ***
Member of the League for Programming Freedom  --  http://ProgFree.org
Project lead for Gutenprint   --http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton
___
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 9/13/2017 11:44 AM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:38:36 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
>> 1080p video streams (MPEG-4) need about 5-8 Mbps burst bandwidth.
>> Gigabit Ethernet has practical throughput about 300Mbps.
> 
> ???  I routinely get over 100 MB/sec (>800 Mbps) transferring files --
> even with scp -- between systems with fast enough disks.

If I'm not mistaken that's with jumbo frames enabled. Consumer NICs
typically do not support jumbo frames. Regardless, if you're getting
~2.5 times my throughput estimate then your MythTV usage is consuming
about 2% of your available bandwidth instead of my 5% estimate, so
instead of wasting 95% of the network bandwidth by not using it you're
wasting 98% of it.

If you were doing video editing then that would be a different story.
This is large(ish) scale bulk data transfers where high sustained
throughput is necessary. But then, you would do this kind of wiring in a
studio environment, not the entire residence.

So, yeah, whole-home wiring just doesn't make sense.

-- 
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 Horne]

For future demands, I recommend a Siamese multi-mode fiber to each drop, 
run to a central patching station. Choose the most common connectors, 
but be sure all your "edge" devices are fiber capable and are designed 
both for multi-mode fiber (not single-mode) and the connectors you 
choose. For existing devices, you can buy 75-ohm coaxial cables combined 
in a common jacket with Cat 5 wire pairs, and that's my recommendation 
for "legacy" technology.


*Warning:* If you buy "Non-plenum" cable, you cannot run it in your 
attic or in any other void that also serves to return air to the air 
conditioning or heating system. Non-plenum rated cable must be enclosed 
in conduit if it is in the plenum. See this Wikipedia article 
 for details.


There is often a (tempting) compromise available: if your house is 
already wired for "CATV", then the RG-59 or RG-6 coaxial cables can be 
used for Ethernet by installing specialized converters, or by 
buying/renting multiple "cable modems" for each room, to use the coaxial 
cable as-is. However, If the walls really are open, /now is the time to 
prepare for the future/, so while leveraging existing CATV coax can be 
tempting and cost less, it's a "work around" intended mostly for rental 
properties or commercial settings where access or work interruption is a 
factor.


Remember that the most expensive item is the labor required to run the 
wires/fiber, so if you do everything at once,  then you can relax 
knowing that the fiber will "future proof" your house while the coax and 
Cat 5 do the job for a few years. BTW, most "fiber" technologies being 
touted right now are actually "fiber to the curb" or "fiber to the 
vault" arrangements, where coaxial cable is used for the "drop" 
connection to and inside your home, so having coax run to your wire 
closet will save you the aggravation of watching a cable tv or telco 
droid run coax on the outside of your home.


FWIW. YMMV.

Bill Horne


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

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

[Chuck Anderson]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:16:22PM -0400, Daniel Barrett wrote:
> On September 13, 2017, Dan Ritter wrote:
> >A field of view about 180 degrees wide, 135 degrees high, 1 arc
> >minute in minimum pixel size [...]
> >180 * 135 * 60 * 60 * 100 * 48 = 41990400,
> >420 billion bits per second.
> >Compress 100:1, we're still at 4.2Gb/s...
> 
> In order to be marketable, they'll have to deliver this awesome
> capability to homes that aren't wired. So, no reason to worry about
> insufficient wiring. :-)
> 
> PS: I wired every room in my house (built in 1895) with CAT-6 and have
> never regretted it. Nobody ever says, "Shit, the wired is down."

http://i.imgur.com/D0qkG4A.jpg
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Daniel Barrett]

On September 13, 2017, Dan Ritter wrote:
>A field of view about 180 degrees wide, 135 degrees high, 1 arc
>minute in minimum pixel size [...]
>180 * 135 * 60 * 60 * 100 * 48 = 41990400,
>420 billion bits per second.
>Compress 100:1, we're still at 4.2Gb/s...

In order to be marketable, they'll have to deliver this awesome
capability to homes that aren't wired. So, no reason to worry about
insufficient wiring. :-)

PS: I wired every room in my house (built in 1895) with CAT-6 and have
never regretted it. Nobody ever says, "Shit, the wired is down."

--
Dan Barrett
dbarr...@blazemonger.com

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

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

[Robert Krawitz]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:38:36 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> 1080p video streams (MPEG-4) need about 5-8 Mbps burst bandwidth.
> Gigabit Ethernet has practical throughput about 300Mbps.

???  I routinely get over 100 MB/sec (>800 Mbps) transferring files --
even with scp -- between systems with fast enough disks.
-- 
Robert Krawitz 

***  MIT Engineers   A Proud Tradition   http://mitathletics.com  ***
Member of the League for Programming Freedom  --  http://ProgFree.org
Project lead for Gutenprint   --http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton
___
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 9/13/2017 10:35 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> You seem to be assuming that all traffic crosses into your ISP.  While

As a practical matter, the majority of my network traffic *does* cross
into my ISP.

> this may be true for your use case, it is certainly not the case for me.
> I've got a MythTV setup, which means much of my streaming media is local
> traffic.  I'd much rather use a wired/switched network for that than
> pollute the shared wifi.

1080p video streams (MPEG-4) need about 5-8 Mbps burst bandwidth.
Gigabit Ethernet has practical throughput about 300Mbps. So that stream
uses about 5% of the available bandwidth at most. Meanwhile, 802.11g
(which I consider to be the least common denominator for WiFi today) can
deliver 20-25Mbps which is more than enough for several simultaneous
streams. It's borderline for 4K but if you're doing 4K video then you've
probably upgraded to at least 802.11n if not 802.11ac.

Myth/Plex are not compelling reasons for wires.

-- 
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?

[Dan Ritter]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 08:16:36AM -0700, Rich Braun wrote:
> Because I just don't see a need for going beyond 1Gbps within the home during
> the course of my life. Maybe 10Gbps applications will materialize, but for now
> there's just not much reason I'll need more than a half-dozen streams of 4K
> video flying around the house at any given time. In my current situation there
> are only two or three places in the house where I wish I had at least that
> second RJ45 jack that the idiot who wired the place failed to install; and I
> wish I had conduit running between two core locations to support the HA setup
> that I have.
> 
> The future's hard to predict but I think we're coming near the end of
> practical advancements in home-networking performance. Guess I'm a luddite.

A field of view about 180 degrees wide, 135 degrees high, 1 arc
minute in minimum pixel size, and updated 100 times per second…
twice, to account for full stereography, and using 48 bits of
color.

180 * 135 * 60 * 60 * 100 * 48 = 41990400,

420 billion bits per second.

Compress 100:1, we're still at 4.2Gb/s, plus some relatively
minor trivia for audio, osmic and haptic data.

Per simultaneous user, of course. 

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

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

[Rich Braun]

When I used to live in Boston, I ran cat-5e to each room of, oh, 15 different
Cambridge/Somerville apartments that I owned at one point or another. (My
standard has been two 4-pair wires to each jack plus one RG-6.) Then when I
moved to SF, I did the same thing in the house built in 1907 at the edge of
the famous fire that destroyed the city a hundred years earlier.  In 2014, I
moved into a vintage-2011 condo that has only one cat-5e to each jack (each
bedroom has two jacks but other rooms only have one jack).

Meanwhile in the time since that first wiring project when I had an oddball
wireless-rooftop link from my house to the One Financial Center building
across from South Station, that gave me all of 2 megabits circa 1997, Internet
speeds have gone to 6 - 10 - 16 - 55 - 100 Mbps. Earlier this year I had to
refuse an upgrade to 250 Mbps at the same price because I failed to
future-proof when I bought a cable modem a couple years ago.

But if I moved to a new home and had to wire it all over again, I think I'd
still just run the same two 4-pair wires to each room, without thinking hard
about it. Why?

Because I just don't see a need for going beyond 1Gbps within the home during
the course of my life. Maybe 10Gbps applications will materialize, but for now
there's just not much reason I'll need more than a half-dozen streams of 4K
video flying around the house at any given time. In my current situation there
are only two or three places in the house where I wish I had at least that
second RJ45 jack that the idiot who wired the place failed to install; and I
wish I had conduit running between two core locations to support the HA setup
that I have.

The future's hard to predict but I think we're coming near the end of
practical advancements in home-networking performance. Guess I'm a luddite.

One other type of wiring that I haven't yet experimented with is low-voltage
DC. The cost of solar power installation is prohibitive for three reasons:
batteries, a grid-transfer switch, and labor. You could eliminate the labor
and the grid-transfer switch if you run an off-grid low-voltage system as a
DIY setup, but I've not really seen any practical setups that attempt to do
this for home computing. While you've got the walls open, you could run some
low-voltage feeds for lighting and USB power connectors, possibly providing
support for a future off-grid solar setup.

-rich


___
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 Bogstad]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Bill Ricker  wrote:
>
>
> 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?)

Your comment about "code" caused me to go out and do a Google search on:

low voltage conduit residential code

a few of the interesting results:

https://www.bicsi.org/pdf/bicsinews/2008/JanuaryFebruary2008.pdf
http://www.sdmmag.com/articles/84601-what-technicians-need-to-know-about-cable-the-nec

They are more oriented towards commercial buildings, but it seem like
"code" is routinely violated
for low voltage cable installs.   I expect that residential installs
are even worse.  Something
to consider I suppose.

Bill Bogstad
___
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 9/12/2017 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.

You seem to be assuming that all traffic crosses into your ISP.  While
this may be true for your use case, it is certainly not the case for me.
I've got a MythTV setup, which means much of my streaming media is local
traffic.  I'd much rather use a wired/switched network for that than
pollute the shared wifi.

-derek

PS: I have a 1G fiber network to my home, although I seem to only be
able to pull ~200mbps down from real sources even though speedtest.net
(from a wired connection) will pull down 940mbps.  Speedtest from my
wifi only pulls down ~300mbps.

PPS: Yes, *THIS* is boasting -- but it's also driving my decisions to
include a wired network for all my background tasks so that wifi is
limited only to those devices that MUST use wifi (or choose to use wifi,
knowing it's capabilities are lower than the wired network).

-- 
   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?

[Kent Borg]

On 09/13/2017 09:34 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
I'd like to do it myself again, but I now have 2 small kids, so I'm 
not sure how I'll be able to spend the 40-60 man-hours at the 
construction site.


That brings up another consideration: When asking someone else to build 
it, the more standard your request, the easier it will be to find 
someone who can do it, and the more likely it will be done correctly.


What are "conventional" approaches that are most "future-resilient", if 
not "future-proof"?


-kb

___
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]

Shirley Márquez Dúlcey  writes:

>> 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.

You make a good point.

My main issue with using Cat6A for the security cameras is that adding
the endpoints is harder.  While I *HAVE* crimped a male RJ45 onto the
end of a Cat6a, I find crimping it onto a Cat5e MUCH easier (and more
secure). I suspect even if I have someone else do the work (still TBD --
I'll know more today) it might still be cheaper to use 5e for the
cameras.  Oh, and 5e "bends" easier than 6a, making it easier to run.
Besides, a Cat5e is perfectly capable of 1Gbps + PoE, which is all I
need for the security cameras (which only run at 100mbps, even for
1080p).

FWIW, last time I DID do it myself, but made the mistake of using RG59
siamese cable for my cameras.  IP cameras have come down in price in the
past 6-7 years, to the point where I can get a 1080p IP camera for even
less than I paid for my NTSC cameras!  Yikes.

I'd like to do it myself again, but I now have 2 small kids, so I'm not
sure how I'll be able to spend the 40-60 man-hours at the construction
site.

-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?

[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

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

[Dan Ritter]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 09:44:00AM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Hi BLUers,
> 
> 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?
> 
> Last time I ran 4x Cat6A and 2x RG6.  However I'm never using both RG6
> F-connectors, so I figured I could replace that with something else.
> And before you ask, yes, I *AM* using all 4 RJ45 connectors in some of
> my drops (and in one place I wish I had MORE Rj45).  So, what else
> should I run?
> 
> My current theory is 4x Cat6A, 1x RG6, and 1x Fiber.
> 
> However I'm not sure what kind of "fiber" to run, nor what kind of
> connector I should use.

OM3 multimode with LC connectors can handle 25, 40, 50 and 100G ethernet at
100m. One pair per room should be fine -- but really, the 
switch cost will be nasty for all the ports you don't use.

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

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

[Kent Borg]

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.)


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.


-kb

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

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

[Chuck Anderson]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 09:44:00AM -0400, 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 personally wouldn't bother with fiber.  If you need more connections
at a location, add a small switch.  You'd need a switch anyway to
convert the fiber to copper.  Who has devices in their home that could
take a fiber?

If you are that concerned about it run conduit so you can pull
whatever you need later without opening the walls.
___
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 9/11/2017 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
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.

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.

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