Category 6 RJ-45 to PCB jack?

[Alex Rast]

This is something I'm trying to find a manufacturer for. Ideal would be a
quad RJ-45 jack with integrated LED's rated to Category 6 for PCB mount.
The rating is essential. I'd love to find a surface mount version but
through-hole would be acceptable if that's all that's available. I'll also
accept a single jack if, again, that's all that's available.

--
Alex Rast
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

 

[Don]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=cat-6+jack+LED&btnG=Google+Search

http://catalog.tycoelectronics.com/TE/bin/TE.Connect?S=13920&M=FEAT&LG=1&I=13


"Alex Rast" <ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:93D1B8461adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44...

This is something I'm trying to find a manufacturer for. Ideal would be a
quad RJ-45 jack with integrated LED's rated to Category 6 for PCB mount.
The rating is essential. I'd love to find a surface mount version but
through-hole would be acceptable if that's all that's available. I'll also
accept a single jack if, again, that's all that's available.

--
Alex Rast
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

 

[Alex Rast]

at Sat, 09 Aug 2003 03:32:11 GMT in
<%WZYa.5468$BC2.4057@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
someone@somewhere.net (Don) wrote :

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=cat-6+jack+LED&btn
G=Google+Search

I'll admit that I wouldn't have thought to hyphenate Cat6. I tried variants
like Category 6 and Cat 6 but not a hyphenated version. In any case, this
brings up, initially, MH connectors. Looks promising, but then you're
eventually redirected to Bel Fuse. Great, but I've already looked into
them. The problem with their connectors is that they don't say explicitly
anywhere in their datasheets whether they're Cat6 compliant or not.

http://catalog.tycoelectronics.com/TE/bin/TE.Connect?S=13920&M=FEAT&LG=1&
I=13

I wonder why I didn't find this one? I did multiple searches on the AMP
site (considering that it would be one of the usual suspects) and found
nothing. Probably a matter of differences in categorization of what AMP
thought was logical versus what I thought was logical. Thanks for the help.

"Alex Rast" <ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:93D1B8461adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44...
This is something I'm trying to find a manufacturer for. Ideal would
be a quad RJ-45 jack with integrated LED's rated to Category 6 for PCB
mount. The rating is essential. I'd love to find a surface mount
version but through-hole would be acceptable if that's all that's
available. I'll also accept a single jack if, again, that's all that's
available.

--
Alex Rast
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

--
Alex Rast
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

 

[Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun]

In article <93D1B8461adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com mentioned...

This is something I'm trying to find a manufacturer for. Ideal would be a
quad RJ-45 jack with integrated LED's rated to Category 6 for PCB mount.
The rating is essential. I'd love to find a surface mount version but
through-hole would be acceptable if that's all that's available. I'll also
accept a single jack if, again, that's all that's available.

Gigabit Ethernet runs okay over Cat5E components. Perhaps that's why
you don't see any Cat6.


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun]

In article <93D2DCF19adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com mentioned...

at Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:25:17 GMT in
MPG.199e961a29e4a7a2989b8f@news.inreach.net>, alondra101@hotmail.com
(Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun') wrote :

In article <93D1B8461adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com mentioned...
This is something I'm trying to find a manufacturer for. Ideal would
be a quad RJ-45 jack with integrated LED's rated to Category 6 for PCB
mount. The rating is essential. ...

Gigabit Ethernet runs okay over Cat5E components. Perhaps that's why
you don't see any Cat6.



But why not use Cat6 if you can? Maybe it does run OK over Cat5E
components, but if Cat6 offers some improvement,

That's just it. It doesn't offer any improvements.

then that can only mean
potentially better performance and reliability for GbE. Furthermore,
technology is a moving target. You've got to think of the future.

The future is fiber optic cable. To the desktop.

GbE may
be the standard today, but it is reasonable, indeed almost inevitable, to
assume that a newer, faster standard will take over. In that light, is it
not a good idea to give yourself some headroom for the future?

They are trying to get 10GB standardized. See gigabit-ethernet.org.

You don't seem to understand what's going on in the Real World. There
are zillions of cat5 (not cat5e) cabling installations, and GbE is
designed to work over *those*, with the cat5e designed to tighten up
the standards to take care of certifying the newer installs. See
EIA/TIA-568A for more info.

You probably don't even realize that GbE doesn't put more bandwidth
demands on the channel than 100 Mb. It uses the same baud rate. If
you want more tech info, xpost to comp.dcom.cabling.


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun]

In article <93D3A73B3adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com mentioned...

at Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:53:53 GMT in
MPG.199fee2c41e1cc1c989ba3@news.inreach.net>, alondra101@hotmail.com
(Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun') wrote :

In article <93D2DCF19adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com mentioned...
at Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:25:17 GMT in
MPG.199e961a29e4a7a2989b8f@news.inreach.net>, alondra101@hotmail.com
(Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun') wrote :

In article <93D1B8461adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com mentioned...
This is something I'm trying to find a manufacturer for. Ideal
would be a quad RJ-45 jack with integrated LED's rated to Category
6 for PCB mount. The rating is essential. ...

Gigabit Ethernet runs okay over Cat5E components. Perhaps that's why
you don't see any Cat6.

But why not use Cat6 if you can? Maybe it does run OK over Cat5E
components, but if Cat6 offers some improvement,

That's just it. It doesn't offer any improvements.

The specs for crosstalk would seem to differ. When I talk about
improvements, I mean in terms of electrical signal integrity.

...

technology is a moving target. You've got to think of the future.

The future is fiber optic cable. To the desktop.

I think the jury is still out on that one. It would be nice to see fiber to
the desktop, but I don't see many companies adopting that. It would seem
that as long as copper can achieve the same throughput, many people aren't
going to switch. I agree that we should and will offer a fiber version of
our product, but nonetheless, if our aim in the copper version is to
provide the highest performance and reliability, I believe that Cat6 is the
best way to do this, or at least to avoid being potentially hampered by
connector performance.

GbE may
be the standard today, but it is reasonable...
to assume that a newer, faster standard will take over...

They are trying to get 10GB standardized. See gigabit-ethernet.org.

Yes, I know. We are looking to offer a 10GB version as well.

You don't seem to understand what's going on in the Real World. There
are zillions of cat5 (not cat5e) cabling installations, and GbE is
designed to work over *those*, with the cat5e designed to tighten up
the standards to take care of certifying the newer installs. See
EIA/TIA-568A for more info.

My point is, if they've gone to the trouble to create and ratify a Cat6
standard, all the Cat6 certified cable, patch panels, etc. in the world in
your network aren't going to mean anything if the basic card sitting in
your server or workstation has a Cat5 or Cat5e jack. At that point the end-
to-end rating of the network is Cat5/5e. Is it not best to support Cat6?
Then, you know that your card won't be the limiting factor in a customer's
network. I agree that not all or indeed many customer networks will be end-
to-end Cat6, but why be the one to break those that are?

You probably don't even realize that GbE doesn't put more bandwidth
demands on the channel than 100 Mb. It uses the same baud rate. If
you want more tech info, xpost to comp.dcom.cabling.

Absolutely I did know that. Technically, it's using 125Mhz signalling on
the GMII interface, using all 4 pairs of the cable interface. But that
doesn't mean that a cleaner connection wouldn't result in a potentially
more error-free transmission. It only stands to reason, the less noise and
crosstalk you have on the lines, the better your signal, the fewer errors.

You sound like you're the victim of marketing hype.

We have plans for going to VoIP, which will use phone sets between the
wall and the PC. For these to have 911 reliability, they will have to
have power supplied thru the Cat5 from the switch. Ssince this uses
one pair, there will be only three pairs left, meaning that none of
the cat5s with phones will support GbE.

We're installing new Crisco switches all over the place, but none of
them will support GbE, even tho all the Dells we're getting have a GbE
NIC. We don't see GbE to the desktop for another five years.

And the way I see it is that if we were to make GbE available to the
desktop, we would just have the same problem we had back in the days
when 10Mb was all that was available: the putzes out in the student
labs would clog up the network with some ghost or backup. So with
higher speed to the desktop, it's just creating another opportunity
for the putzes to clog up the backbone again.


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Alex Rast]

at Mon, 11 Aug 2003 05:59:08 GMT in
<MPG.19a0d05647b25787989bab@news.inreach.net>, alondra101@hotmail.com
(Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun') wrote :

In article <93D3A73B3adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com mentioned...
at Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:53:53 GMT in
MPG.199fee2c41e1cc1c989ba3@news.inreach.net>, alondra101@hotmail.com
(Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun') wrote :

In article <93D2DCF19adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com mentioned...
at Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:25:17 GMT in
MPG.199e961a29e4a7a2989b8f@news.inreach.net>,
alondra101@hotmail.com
(Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun') wrote :

In article <93D1B8461adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com mentioned...
...
Gigabit Ethernet runs okay over Cat5E components. Perhaps that's
why you don't see any Cat6.

But why not use Cat6 if you can?
...
technology is a moving target. You've got to think of the future.

The future is fiber optic cable. To the desktop.

I think the jury is still out on that one. ...
...
You don't seem to understand what's going on in the Real World.
There are zillions of cat5 (not cat5e) cabling installations, and GbE
is designed to work over *those*, with the cat5e designed to tighten
up the standards to take care of certifying the newer installs. See
EIA/TIA-568A for more info.

My point is, if they've gone to the trouble to create and ratify a
Cat6 standard, all the Cat6 certified cable, patch panels, etc. in the
world in your network aren't going to mean anything if the basic card
sitting in your server or workstation has a Cat5 or Cat5e jack. At
that point the end- to-end rating of the network is Cat5/5e. Is it not
best to support Cat6? Then, you know that your card won't be the
limiting factor in a customer's network. I agree that not all or
indeed many customer networks will be end- to-end Cat6, but why be the
one to break those that are?

You sound like you're the victim of marketing hype...

If you're just an end-user company, you can make your own decisions about
what standards to adopt, what cables to install in your building, etc. But
when you're an OEM designing a product for the market, you've got to
consider the best way to support the maximum number of potential customers
with the highest quality product. Since there are some companies who *do*
have GbE to the desktop, we want to support them. Some fraction of those
will want Cat6 throughout. So it's imperative for us not to leave them
hanging by supplying a card that doesn't have a Cat6 jack. What will the
sharp-eyed network manager do? He'll buy his cards from another company,
instead of from us.

--
Alex Rast
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

 

[jojo_boy]

I would like to throw in my two cents here even thought the thread has
already passed this up.
There are a few different standards. IEEE 802.3ab 1000baseT which will
run over 5e cable using intense DSP cancellation. It does 250 Mb
bi-directionally on all four pairs. However TIA/EIA has published
their 854 1000baseTX standard which transmits 500 Mb in one direction
over two pairs for 1 Gb transmit and same for recieve. This standard
is written for category 6 cable and uses much less processing. It will
ultimately be cheaper to manufacture.

Jojo

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:25:17 -0700, Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun'
<alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <93D1B8461adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com mentioned...
This is something I'm trying to find a manufacturer for. Ideal would be a
quad RJ-45 jack with integrated LED's rated to Category 6 for PCB mount.
The rating is essential. I'd love to find a surface mount version but
through-hole would be acceptable if that's all that's available. I'll also
accept a single jack if, again, that's all that's available.

Gigabit Ethernet runs okay over Cat5E components. Perhaps that's why
you don't see any Cat6.

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <kfnimvkrdg5err1uo0nl0ka701aot936on@4ax.com>,
jojo_boy@hotmail.com mentioned...

I would like to throw in my two cents here even thought the thread has
already passed this up.
There are a few different standards. IEEE 802.3ab 1000baseT which will
run over 5e cable using intense DSP cancellation. It does 250 Mb
bi-directionally on all four pairs. However TIA/EIA has published
their 854 1000baseTX standard which transmits 500 Mb in one direction
over two pairs for 1 Gb transmit and same for recieve. This standard
is written for category 6 cable and uses much less processing. It will
ultimately be cheaper to manufacture.

Jojo

Sorry, but there are millions of GB NICs already out there, with GB
chips such as the Intel chip. If it isn't compatible with those, it's
not gonna fly. Just like the old 100 MB standard that worked over
cat3 cable. I've seen those hubs for sale for five dollars - no one
wants them.

[snip]

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@