W
whit3rd
Guest
On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 2:38:34 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
> I think the CAT5e cables won\'t work for 1000baseT, even with all 8 wires populated, no?
Oh, it works fine; 100baseT used two-level signalling, one pair, and 1000baseT
went to five-level signalling, four pairs at a time, to get an order of magnitude speedup.
But, because part of that speedup was using up the noise margin (from two-level to five)
and the rest was paralleling multiple (independently clocked) paths, it doesn\'t need any
more bandwidth than 100baseT; so, all the Cat5 and Cat5e wire was immediately
compatible. The termination accuracy and crosstalk minimization gets a tad more important.
1000baseT checks the pairs for connectivity, so an old crossover cable... might
just work, or a two-pair cable even. It\'s compatible, so it can fall back to two-level
and work with the 10baseT protocols, and with a media adapter, that means it
can talk to old thinwire (10base2) or thickwire (10base5) subnets.
> I think the CAT5e cables won\'t work for 1000baseT, even with all 8 wires populated, no?
Oh, it works fine; 100baseT used two-level signalling, one pair, and 1000baseT
went to five-level signalling, four pairs at a time, to get an order of magnitude speedup.
But, because part of that speedup was using up the noise margin (from two-level to five)
and the rest was paralleling multiple (independently clocked) paths, it doesn\'t need any
more bandwidth than 100baseT; so, all the Cat5 and Cat5e wire was immediately
compatible. The termination accuracy and crosstalk minimization gets a tad more important.
1000baseT checks the pairs for connectivity, so an old crossover cable... might
just work, or a two-pair cable even. It\'s compatible, so it can fall back to two-level
and work with the 10baseT protocols, and with a media adapter, that means it
can talk to old thinwire (10base2) or thickwire (10base5) subnets.