Re: [datacenter] New to list

• To: Jay Hennigan <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: [datacenter] New to list
• From: Bill Woodcock <[email protected]>
• Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:36:33 -0800 (PST)
• Cc: Martin Hannigan <[email protected]>, Jeff Wasilko <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
• Delivered-to: [email protected]
• Delivered-to: mailing list [email protected]
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• List-help: <mailto:[email protected]>
• List-post: <mailto:[email protected]>
• List-subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
• List-unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
• Mailing-list: contact [email protected]; run by ezmlm

    > Wow, I've never even considered this.  The RJ-21 connectors are extremely
    > reliable and I've never had an issue with them "losing a pair", this is
    > in dealing with hundreds of them in PBX work, etc.  I would say that they
    > are far more reliable than your typical modular plug RJ-11 with regular
    > phone cordage.

Uh, maybe...  I've certainly had bad 50-pair cables.

Last I knew, RJ-21 connectors weren't sufficiently shielded from internal
crosstalk to get Cat-5 certification, much less anything higher.  I don't
know that I'd want to put in new infrastructure now that wasn't going to
pass gigabit traffic.  I've already got a fair bit of gig-over-copper, and
it's working well, but it's on good quality four-pairs, not 50-pairs.

                                -Bill



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [datacenter] New to list
    • From: Jeff Wasilko <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [datacenter] New to list
• Next by Date: Re: [datacenter] New to list
• Previous by thread: Re: [datacenter] New to list
• Next by thread: Re: [datacenter] New to list
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread