Re: [datacenter] New to list

• To: Bill Woodcock <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: [datacenter] New to list
• From: Jeff Wasilko <[email protected]>
• Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:11:54 -0500
• Cc: Jay Hennigan <[email protected]>, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
• Delivered-to: [email protected]
• Delivered-to: mailing list [email protected]
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>; from "Bill Woodcock" on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 01:36:33PM -0800
• 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
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 01:36:33PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> 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.

there are cat5 rj-21 connectors. they're keyed differently than
cat3 rj-21s.

gigE is a different story, but it will probably be a while before
we see blases w/ 48 gigE ports on 'em.

I've run gigE over 25pr cables that were part of a structured
wiring system. 

-j

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

• References:
  • Re: [datacenter] New to list
    • From: Bill Woodcock <[email protected]>

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