Re: Re: Cat-5e

["David Yeend" <david.yeend@xxxxxxxxx>]

Cat6 will give higher headroom than Cat5e as long as it is installed
correctly and then validated with a certification tester to prove that the
installation workmanship is up to the mark.

What does that mean?

Essentially it means there is a greater margin in which to accommodate
performance eroding issues such as cross talk or noise pick up from
external
sources generating interference. This margin is also available to make the
system less sensitive to issues such as users who tie patch leads in knots
and other things that should not happen to a cabling system but which do.

The cost difference should not be too great (if it is I would question the
quality of the Cat5e being compared.) The performance is higher (if
installed correctly) giving the benefits as noted above. Also Cat6 will
support 10Gigabit Ethernet (under the right conditions) for up to 30ish
meters. Cat5e will not support 10GBASE-T at all.

If you only want to run Gigabit then you do not need Cat6.

<Pedantic mode>
By the way, the article cited is missing a little information on line
signal
encoding - 1000BASE-T actually requires around 87Mhz from the cable plant
but don't worry about it too much!
</Pedantic mode>

Regards,

David



On 10/16/07, Pete Church <yahoo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   So. If Cat 5e cables are potentially over-spec'd at 350MHz, and only
> need to
> be "rated" for 125MHz for Gigabit performance what is Cat6
for?
>
> An electrician has just tried to argue that I should flood wire Cat 6
> rather
> than Cat 5 "because it will be better". Will it?
>
> Pete
>
> _____
>
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx <ukha_d%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
> ukha_d@xxxxxxx <ukha_d%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
> Chris Hunter
> Sent: 16 October 2007 17:36
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx <ukha_d%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [ukha_d] Re: Cat-5e
>
> Ah, that's better ... now I understand ... I'm glad I stuck with it !
>
> thanks
>
> Chris
>
> On 16 Oct 2007, at 11:36, Mal Lansell wrote:
>
> > --- In ukha_d@yahoogroups. <mailto:ukha_d%40yahoogroups.com>
com, Jim
> Noble <yahoo-groups@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >> 1Gbps != 1000MHz.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >
> > It runs at 125MHz. Here's some detail:
> > http://www.hardware <http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/231/2>
> secrets.com/article/231/2
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]