PDA

View Full Version : Help me get 500 ft away from router



leif
2010-05-25, 18:32
Can I use ethernet cat6 to span 600 ft right out of my existing router directly into squeeze box? I am told 300 ft is maximum wired range. Can I double this range to 600 ft. by using two 300 ft cat6 lines joined in the middle with a $20 ethernet switch? Does switch require electricity? If so, is there one that runs on battery? I won't be able to easily extend an extension cord to switch.

Alternatively can someone advice on a router/antenna solution for around 400 ft? I tried using a dir655 router but even though squeezebox in shack could see network the wifi signal wasn't strong enough.

As a last resort can I buy two ActionTec MI424-WR routers around $40 each and set them up as a bridge as seen below in my second post

and have one sitting beside my uverse router/modem and have the other MI424-WR in my shack 600 ft away where my squeezebox is? And use 600 ft of coax to connect the two MI424-WR's?

leif
2010-05-25, 18:37
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145636

this shows how to bridge the ActionTec MI424-WR routers.

Ford Freak
2010-05-25, 18:40
You can have a cable longer than 300 feet. There is no guarantee that you'll achieve maximum data transfer speeds though. I assume the only thing connected to the cable will be the SB. If that is the case, you shouldn't have any problems. Especially if you keep the cable away from power lines and other stuff that might interfere with the signal. You could also make two 300 foot cables and use a repeater/switch to connect them. You'll need some sort of electrical power though.

JJZolx
2010-05-25, 18:41
Can I double this range to 600 ft. by using two 300 ft cat6 lines joined in the middle with a $20 ethernet switch?

Yes.


Does switch require electricity?

Yes.

iPhone
2010-05-25, 19:59
Can I use ethernet cat6 to span 600 ft right out of my existing router directly into squeeze box? I am told 300 ft is maximum wired range. Can I double this range to 600 ft. by using two 300 ft cat6 lines joined in the middle with a $20 ethernet switch? Does switch require electricity? If so, is there one that runs on battery? I won't be able to easily extend an extension cord to switch.

Alternatively can someone advice on a router/antenna solution for around 400 ft? I tried using a dir655 router but even though squeezebox in shack could see network the wifi signal wasn't strong enough.

As a last resort can I buy two ActionTec MI424-WR routers around $40 each and set them up as a bridge as seen below in my second post and have one sitting beside my uverse router/modem and have the other MI424-WR in my shack 600 ft away where my squeezebox is? And use 600 ft of coax to connect the two MI424-WR's?

Hello and welcome to the Forum.

I am assuming since you have a Squeezebox at the 600 feet away location that you have AC power there? If you are in the States, why not use Powerline Networking? Also on the 600 ft CAT 6 cable, I would guess that it wouldn't meet the standard anymore for all features to work as spec'd but should still work fine for having only a Squeezebox connected.

As for antenna solutions, if the mounting is available for true fixed hardpoint, 600 feet is nothing. Solution A would be a hog fence antenna or maybe a MFJ 1800 yagi to see if a single high gain antenna can put enough signal in the location and have enough RX gain to hear the SB talk back (the hardest part). Solution B would be a yagi (attached to router with low loss coax pigtail) pointed just at the edge of the nearest outside location with a yagi to receive this signal. The second yagi (on outside location) would have low loss cable attached to a quarter wave antenna. This second part (yagi attached to quarter wave) becomes a bi-directional antenna circuit. The reason not to point the yagi directly at the location but at the outside edge is to isolate the SB from receiving directly from the house side yagi forcing it to use the quarter wave to yagi setup. We used these setups to find people trapped in buildings that still had a working cell phone or text pager but couldn't log into the tower due to lack of signal strength. If power is available at the outside location, smaller antennas can be used by installing a BDA (bi-directional RF amp).

In the end it might just be easier to buy a Touch and take it and a USB drive to the other location when needed.

leif
2010-05-25, 20:48
I don't really understand the wireless solutions as explained above here. The MFJ-1800 recommended above I don't see how it's compatible with SB? My current uverse modem/router- I don't think it nor are most routers compatible with such wifi antennas so I would need to buy a wireless router with external antenna support right? Can someone recomend one? Then can somoone recomend an antenna? Will an antenna boost wifi 100 ft? I already tried borrowing a dir655 router and attached it to my uverse modem/router with a 25 ft ethernet cable which allowed me to place the dir655 in my attic against the wall of my house that faces my shack but the SB in shack could see the network but was too weak to get on. My shack does have electricity but I don't want powerline internet.

Although if you guys think a 600 ft straight cat6 run without a switch in the middle will work I'd like to try that first.

andynormancx
2010-05-26, 01:19
My shack does have electricity but I don't want powerline internet.
Why not, it works very well (though that said I've never tried using it over 600ft).

leif
2010-05-26, 01:28
my shack has it's own power meter and is wired up to the road not my house so I don't think it would work.

JJZolx
2010-05-26, 01:33
http://www.diywireless.net

toby10
2010-05-26, 03:06
I don't really understand the wireless solutions as explained above here. The MFJ-1800 recommended above I don't see how it's compatible with SB? ........

Although if you guys think a 600 ft straight cat6 run without a switch in the middle will work I'd like to try that first.

It's just a bigger Wifi antenna to boost the signal and will work with any B/G device.
I use a similar antenna on my car trunk for Wifi (different style, 1 foot rod on a magnet mount).

I'd definitely go with a single run 600' foot first before introducing more connections and switches unnecessarily on such a long run.
If for any reason you later need to add in a split or switch you can always bribe your Radio Shack employee to cut & add RJ45 connectors.

fragfutter
2010-05-26, 03:24
run optical fibre.

inject power over ethernet at one end and power the switch in the middle with it.

if you have direct line of sight, use directed wifi antennas.

Soulkeeper
2010-05-26, 03:37
180 meters of good quality Cat6 might work just fine for your purpose, at least if you pair and terminate the wires correctly, and have a quality switch in each end. Unless you live directly beneath a high voltage power line, that is. But there's disagreement about the maximum length:

"CAT-6 and CAT6e is rated to 550M or 1000M depending on your source" http://www.connectworld.net/syscon/support.htm
"The maximum allowed length of a Cat-6 cable is 100 meters (330 ft) when used for 10/100/1000baseT." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_6_cable#Maximum_Length

You could consider going for coaxial cable (10base5, obsolete but good for 500 meters and 10 mbps which is more than enough for your Squeezebox) or fiber optics (fancier and more expensive).

andynormancx
2010-05-26, 05:38
my shack has it's own power meter and is wired up to the road not my house so I don't think it would work.

So more "can't have" than "don't want", fair enough.

bobkoure
2010-05-26, 06:00
Extending the Ethernet limit of 100m just won't work - no matter what category your wire is.
The issue is in the way Ethernet works. Any party on the line that has a message to send first listens to see if anyone else is "talking". If not, it goes ahead and sends - but still listening to the wire to see if anyone else has tried to talk at the same time (a "collision"). If there is a collision, that party waits for a bit, then tries listening, etc, before sending.
So... Ethernet timing is based around a 100m max cable length and a particular packet length. Longer cable means more collisions and (worse) undetected collisions.

What to do?
If you're using wireless, you could simply use a high gain directional antenna. You probably won't need one at both ends. For under 1000' feet, I'd just use a yagi (http://www.fab-corp.com/home.php?cat=258) or a panel antenna (http://www.fab-corp.com/home.php?cat=270) (I'm partial to the backfire ones).

You can "go the other way" and put the directional antenna put by your remote station. Same antennas as above (antenna gain works both ways). Plus a wireless "repeater". The cheapest way to get a repeater is something like this Asus WL-520 router (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833320026&cm_re=asus_dd-wrt-_-33-320-026-_-Product). Install dd-wrt on it, put it into wireless repeater mode, add directional antenna, point, and done. BTW, at 600' you might not even need the directional antenna (but no promises). Cheapest solution if you don't need the antenna (thirty bucks)

If you really want your signal on a wire, there needs to be a "switch" somewhere in that line, to turn it into two under-100m segments (timing's separate on each switch segment so this'll work fine. No power? Well, you are pulling cable - and you can run power over CAT5/6. It's called POE for "power over Ethernet" which is a bit of a misnomer as Ethernet can run over things other than CAT5/6.
You'd need a POE "power injector" plus a POE switch.

Yes, you could run optical cable. Expensive, but 100BaseFX, for instance can run 400m. You'd need 600' of cable, plus, as this would be bulk cable, you'd need to terminate the cable, so either a semi pricey terminating kit and learn how or pay someone. Then you'd need terminating electronics on each end. I'd consider this if I needed distant GB access, but not otherwise (and there's POE for 1000tx over CAT5/6).

Then, there's powerline. I haven't had great luck with these, and have never tried to connect two points 600' apart. If you do use them, make sure they're both on the same "side" of your electrical supply. (not an issue if you're on 240V). For the US, power coming into your house is 240V, and it's "split" into two 115V feeds. (IMO, quite clever - safe residential power with the advantage of higher voltage / smaller conductors on the street - but I digress).
Best if they're on the same circuit (i.e. if your remote location is powered from your house, and the circuit runs from there, install an electrical outlet somewhere in your house attached to that same circuit - and put the "home" end of the powerline adapter there)

Congratulations if you got this far! I'm sure I've missed something. Never fear - someone will chime in :)
Oh - and if I was doing it, I'd use the second wireless option (repeater at the remote location). But I'd at least think of these other ways to go. And yes, I do deal with this issue on a semi-regular basis.


If you go POE, you want CAT6 for the section that's carrying power - the conductors are a bit larger in CAT6 so you'll have less voltage drop to deal with.
If you're putting this cable in the ground, you want self-sealing direct burial.

maggior
2010-05-26, 06:44
What about a pair of MOCA adapters? MOCA provides ethernet over coax and is generally used in environments where settop boxes for TV service have an ethernet connection rather than an RF connection. To make use of existing coax wiring, they developed MOCA. Verizon FIOS is an example.

According to the faq (http://www.mocalliance.org/aboutus/faq.php), the max length is "over 300m". This more than meets your 600 ft requirement. Here are a pair of adapters for sale at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Actiontec-Ethernet-Over-Coax-Adapter/dp/B0022NHMZY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1274881397&sr=8-2).

servies
2010-05-26, 07:15
Extending the Ethernet limit of 100m just won't work - no matter what category your wire is.
The issue is in the way Ethernet works. Any party on the line that has a message to send first listens to see if anyone else is "talking". If not, it goes ahead and sends - but still listening to the wire to see if anyone else has tried to talk at the same time (a "collision"). If there is a collision, that party waits for a bit, then tries listening, etc, before sending.
So... Ethernet timing is based around a 100m max cable length and a particular packet length. Longer cable means more collisions and (worse) undetected collisions.
This story would be partly correct if you were using the 'ancient' (mind the quotes) coax solution which is a shared medium, which UTP is not (each cable is just for communication between 2 devices).
The 100 meter maximum for UTP is based on the signal quality that's left after 100 meters... Maybe someone else whose native language is English can explain better...

bobkoure
2010-05-26, 07:17
Yep, that looks to be do-able. Haven't used it before.
It also looks like you could exceed the 300m with better cable (like maybe RG6U) - it's slot-based (like packet radio).
Something I hadn't known about - Thanks!

Again, if it's going straight into the ground, you'd want "direct burial". I've less experience with this, but it seems you'd want the "flooded" version.

jo-wie
2010-05-26, 08:20
Devices in sight? WLAN-Router with external antenna? I would try the following very cheap antenna

http://www.heise.de/netze/artikel/Die-0-Euro-Antenne-223704.html

Sorry, I have only a German link, eventually is an automatic tranlation good enough to understand:

http://translate.google.com/

iPhone
2010-05-26, 09:09
I don't really understand the wireless solutions as explained above here. The MFJ-1800 recommended above I don't see how it's compatible with SB? My current uverse modem/router- I don't think it nor are most routers compatible with such wifi antennas so I would need to buy a wireless router with external antenna support right? Can someone recomend one? Then can somoone recomend an antenna? Will an antenna boost wifi 100 ft? I already tried borrowing a dir655 router and attached it to my uverse modem/router with a 25 ft ethernet cable which allowed me to place the dir655 in my attic against the wall of my house that faces my shack but the SB in shack could see the network but was too weak to get on. My shack does have electricity but I don't want powerline internet.

Although if you guys think a 600 ft straight cat6 run without a switch in the middle will work I'd like to try that first.

Do I think an uncut run of CAT6 will work, I do. CAT6 is going to cost $60 to $180 dollars depending on jacket and purpose. Since its just going to carry signal and not be used for current, I say go with the cheap stuff and if you have to replace it every 20 years big deal. 600 feet of direct burial will be around $150. A $35 WiFi panel antenna beats that hands down not even including the fact that there is no digging!

The antenna is not 'made' for your router, it is made for the frequency band your router is on. To use optional external antennas, a router must have screw on removable antennas.

Question: Does your router have external antenna(s) that are screwed into Female SMA connectors? If so, then you can use any antenna you want with it that is 'cut/tuned' for the WiFi band. A 'pigtail' goes between the antenna and the antenna connector on the router so the antenna can be mounted in the most advantageous location without complete regard to where the router is. The pigtail has a male 'N' connector to attach to the MFJ-1800 and most routers need a male SMA. MFJ also sells this pigtail MFJ-5606SR.

I would try the high gain MFJ-1800 yagi first or a 15 to 18 dB panel antenna. I am fairly sure the Squeezebox will see the network. The issue is if the Squeezebox can make it back to the router without some help. As suggested elsewhere, panel antennas work fairly well as long as its an unobstructed LOS. Some of the panel antennas come with the pigtail as part of the assembly. They can be as little as $10 more then a yagi to $100 more. The panel excels at lighting up a broader area on a specific angle of direction (think quadrants). The yagi excels at lighting up a specific place on a narrow beam width (think target).

bpa
2010-05-26, 09:54
You could try your current setup again but with the cardboard parabolic reflector described here on one or both of the routers.
http://www.freeantennas.com/projects/template/

It won't costs much except time. Netstumbler may be necessary to get best alignment.

As a test I made one of these up and was able to detect networks a few miles away in LOS using a USB adapter.

gharris999
2010-05-26, 16:42
I live waaaaaay out in the sticks and my closest line-of-sight neighbor is about 1400 feet away. In a fit of largess several years ago, I agreed to share my satellite based internet connection with the neighbors. This is a 2nd home for them and they're here only a couple of months out of the year so getting their own satellite system was hard to justify. WiMax isn't an option (we live in a hollow...no coverage.) DSL isn't an option, nor is cable. ISDN isn't in the cards and even regular old dial-up is only 1/2 speed here because of the antiquated "capacity enhancer" equipment Qwest has down the hill. So satellite it is and I tried to figure out a way to share the internet connection with the neighbor wirelessly and on the cheap. What I came up with is shown below. It works...but only barely. I certainly wouldn't go this route again. I'd spend the extra $$$ for proper yagi antennas.

That said, if it's possible for you to run wire, run wire. Your total investment for a cat6 spool, a crimping tool and some rj45 modular plugs should be less than $200. You can easily run the wire, put on the modular plugs and test. For that matter, buy a 1000' spool of cat6 and put jacks on either end without unspooling it. Plug one end into your router and the other end into the SB. Does it work? If it works spooled, I'd think it would work unspooled. If it doesn't work, clip off the plugs and return the spool.

But if it does work, then your bigger task will be burying the wire in proper conduit. Or improper conduit. Get the cheapest PVC you can find at Lowes or Home Depot and find an unemployed person and hand them a mattock.

This is exactly what I did a couple of years ago with a couple of friends in town. Their houses are at opposite ends of a long narrow lot and they wanted to share a network. Mind you, this was a shorter run than what you're talking about..it was only about 225'. But it works like a charm and we managed to dig the ditch, bury the "conduit" and cable and get the network working all in the same day. And yes, the friends both have squeezeboxes and share a common server.

iPhone
2010-05-26, 19:00
I live waaaaaay out in the sticks and my closest line-of-sight neighbor is about 1400 feet away. In a fit of largess several years ago, I agreed to share my satellite based internet connection with the neighbors. This is a 2nd home for them and they're here only a couple of months out of the year so getting their own satellite system was hard to justify. WiMax isn't an option (we live in a hollow...no coverage.) DSL isn't an option, nor is cable. ISDN isn't in the cards and even regular old dial-up is only 1/2 speed here because of the antiquated "capacity enhancer" equipment Qwest has down the hill. So satellite it is and I tried to figure out a way to share the internet connection with the neighbor wirelessly and on the cheap. What I came up with is shown below. It works...but only barely. I certainly wouldn't go this route again. I'd spend the extra $$$ for proper yagi antennas.

Hi gharris999, Have you thought about replacing the antenna setup? If I were looking for improvement from that system, I would go with a different antenna and replace the current Coax with some ultra low loss Coax. A $50 donation (new antenna/coax) from the neighbors would probably kick up their reception big time. A true yagi or panel would take what you already have to the next level.

From the picture, I don't what antenna you're using but in many cases just changing the stick to an elevated fixed dipole with the home made reflector could be all that's needed to get better results. Remember a dipole doesn't need a ground plane to work properly. The homebrew hog fence antenna would also be a low cost possible upgrade. The hog fence antenna is basically a crescent of wire fence with an elevated dipole of proper band positioned in front of the mesh for maximum gain.

Nice setup and you're a nice neighbor to go to all that trouble for them.

bobkoure
2010-05-28, 08:04
The 100 meter maximum for UTP is based on the signal quality that's left after 100 meters... Maybe someone else whose native language is English can explain better...
Sorry but it's not. Even with ancient wiring, signal quality is fine after this distance. Try it - scopes are cheap and handheld these days. That's not the issue.

The issue is timing and the "length" of the packet (literal length, as in the length of wire the packet occupies, given the speed of electrons in a conductor).
Yes, having only two parties will make collisions less likely. And with only two parties you could likely go half-duplex successfully (yes it cuts your bandwidth in half, but it should also remove most or all of the collision issue.

I would ask one question: have you actually strung a longer-than 100m length of network cable? I have, both the "ancient" types and the CAT5/5e/6. My experience is that you get lots of collisions, even though an injected signal scopes out just fine. Even a TDR shows no problem end to end.

So... go read up - or break out, say 600' of your preferred UTP, stick it between two switches and see how that works. If they're smart switches, you can get collision reports without any other gear.

bobkoure
2010-05-28, 08:14
Do I think an uncut run of CAT6 will work, I do.
I do not, but let's agree to disagree


I would try the high gain MFJ-1800 yagi first or a 15 to 18 dB panel antenna. I am fairly sure the Squeezebox will see the network. The issue is if the Squeezebox can make it back to the router without some help.
Remember that antenna gain is bidirectional. Not only transmitting more selectively but receiving as well (look at a satellite TV dish - that's receive-only)

I'd also caution that, even with detachable antennas, different routers have different antenna connectors. Google is your friend! To simplify, you can usually get an antenna with an 'N' connector - and then it's just a matter of finding an adapter (under $10, usually about $4) to go to your router.

bobkoure
2010-05-28, 08:32
From the picture, I don't what antenna you're using
It looks to be a sector antenna. Nice homebrew, BTW.
One on each house? Or just this and they have a laptop that moves around in their house? If that's it, the solution might be for them to have a dd-wrt router set to "wireless repeater. Adjust the repeater's position and maybe aim the quadrant antenna a bit, and that's it. Otherwise, they could buy a parabolic (http://www.fab-corp.com/home.php?cat=251) and aim it at the quadrant.

leif
2010-05-28, 09:45
Thanks for all the suggestions, Safe to say I'm a litle overwhelmed. I've decided to forgo all wired methods. I bought the powerline switch pack but even though it worked in my house when I tested it, it wouldn't work in my shack. My uverse/modem router is 400 feet from my shack but there is a hillside between be and my shack and my uverse modem/router doesn't have external antenna. I've been told by both logitech and my modem/router that wireless repeaters are incompatible for my router and squeezebox also so here is what I tried. I attached a 30 ft ethernet cable from my uverse modem/router to a dir 655 router I placed in my attic. Attic just cresess the top of the hillside obstruction giving a clear line of sight to my shack only a little over 300 ft away from attic location. I was disappointed that though squeezebox could see dir655 network it couldn't connect. Is there an antenna I can buy for just the squeezebox location that will allow me to buy a cheap bestbuy router without external antennas to put back in my attic again like before? This will require a wireless bride to sit beside my squeezebox though right? In that case I may not want to do that. Or is my best bet to borrow my friends dir655 again and set it up as before in my attic but attach an external antenna to it and see if it works? If that still doesn't work could I have a router in attic with antenna but have the antenna attached to the outside of the house and fed through the wall? The other thing I was thinking about is if the wall of my house is what's making the difference of the signal not making it. Then without any antennas how about could I get a cheap bestbuy router connect it to my uverse router with 50 ft of ethernet cable and attach it to the outside of my house high up and under the eves to protect from rainfall? Can I weather proof it?

alfista
2010-05-28, 09:53
The issue is timing and the "length" of the packet (literal length, as in the length of wire the packet occupies, given the speed of electrons in a conductor).
Yes, having only two parties will make collisions less likely. And with only two parties you could likely go half-duplex successfully (yes it cuts your bandwidth in half, but it should also remove most or all of the collision issue.
I agree so far as to the collison issue being the reason for the length limit, this stands true for 10Base-2, 10Base-5, 10Base-T and 100Base-TX. But in an environment with TP wiring and no hubs (switches are OK) there is no collision domain and it is this that will allow full duplex.
In the context of a single TP cable, half or full duplex is irrelevant when it comes to collisions since separate pairs are used as long as we are talking about 10 and 100 Mbit/s, Gbit uses other techniques but that's probably not interesting in this case.
Either way, I would hesitate using TP cabling in this case even if I have no doubt it would work. Lightning could induce some nasty voltages and most network equipment has poor (nonexistent more likely) protection.

m1abrams
2010-05-28, 10:07
I agree so far as to the collison issue being the reason for the length limit, this stands true for 10Base-2, 10Base-5, 10Base-T and 100Base-TX. But in an environment with TP wiring and no hubs (switches are OK) there is no collision domain and it is this that will allow full duplex.
In the context of a single TP cable, half or full duplex is irrelevant when it comes to collisions since separate pairs are used as long as we are talking about 10 and 100 Mbit/s, Gbit uses other techniques but that's probably not interesting in this case.
Either way, I would hesitate using TP cabling in this case even if I have no doubt it would work. Lightning could induce some nasty voltages and most network equipment has poor (nonexistent more likely) protection.

Zero collision domain only exists if you only have 1 device and 1 device does not make much of a network ;). 2 devices trying to talk on a line will have collisions if the expected timing is not meet which is why you have a length limit.

alfista
2010-05-28, 12:43
2 devices trying to talk on a line will have collisions if the expected timing is not meet which is why you have a length limit.
That's true for networks where devices actually talk on the same line, which they don't do when using TP cables. If you have a hub (which most people don't nowadays) there is a common "medium" where collisions may happen.

m1abrams
2010-05-28, 12:48
That's true for networks where devices actually talk on the same line, which they don't do when using TP cables. If you have a hub (which most people don't nowadays) there is a common "medium" where collisions may happen.

Explain how Full-duplex devices do not talk on the same medium when talking to each other? I think you might be confusing things.

alfista
2010-05-29, 15:26
Explain how Full-duplex devices do not talk on the same medium when talking to each other? I think you might be confusing things.
Actually, medium might be a poor choice of words when it comes to wired neworks of today (unlike the old coax stuff). What I meant is that electrically the data in each direction run on separate pairs in a TP cable when running in normal 10 and 100 Mbit modes. Hence, only one transmitter and one transceiver in each direction for each segment.

jo-wie
2010-05-30, 01:29
Explain how Full-duplex devices do not talk on the same medium when talking to each other? I think you might be confusing things.

That's the difference between a hub and a (full duplex) switch. A hub connects physically connected devices on a shared medium and collision domain. A switch establishes a point to point connection between physically connected devices and uses dedicated RX/TX pairs - no paket collisions. It uses a fast switch engine and buffers.

bobkoure
2010-06-01, 06:43
from this thread (http://forums.slimdevices.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=552053)

I did read and appreciate the input on that thread although my questions on my last post were not addressed and the topic seemed to have migrated to technical info I'm not knowledgeable about.
OK, look.
If the technical issues are too difficult, just go and get 600' of CAT5, 5e, or 6.
Don't put it in the ground - just leave it in the box. You're probably going to end up buying a 1000' box anyway.
terminate the two ends. You're going to have to either learn how to do that or get someone to do it.

So now you have 600' (or whatever distance you're interested in) of UTP. Plug one end into your router and the other end into your squeezebox.
Does it work?
Yes - you're done. Go bury that cable.
No - try again with a switch at either end (4 port 10/100 switches are cheap)
Still No - try some of the other suggestions in this thread

Note that it really might work, if you indeed have only two devices attached to this segment of cable. As alfista points out there are separate transmit and receive pairs so there is no collision domain.
I've pulled long runs of Cat5 with a single device on each end (more in the 400' range) and have not had good luck. You may be luckier - and there's really only one way to tell.
If alfista's right, you should be able to do this test on the whole 1000' box (easier than measuring out 600').
Either way, do let us know if it worked.

leif
2010-06-01, 10:14
I bought a spool of 500 foot cat5e at homedepot for $60 on sale. It didn't work at 500 feet so I cut it at 400 feet the length of my run. It played a couple songs but after a few minutes wouldn't recognize my network. I was told I could force squeezebox to operate at 10mbps and that may allow the signal to reach the 400 feet? How do I do this? Is there a switch I can use that can get electricity from the ethernet cord so I don't have to run an extension cord to the switch? If not I'd like to run the switch 100 feet from termination so I'm only using a single one hundred foot extension cord instead of two daisychained together although this means from the switch to squeezebox will be around 300 feet. Am I definitely guaranteed to make a 300 feet run from switch? If I don't will I be able to resplice the ethernet cable to different lengths? If I'm placing a switch 100 feet from termination, does it matter which end I place the switch on? Router side or squeezebox side?

bobkoure
2010-06-01, 11:03
If there's a switch, it's in your firewall/router. Many don't support this, and a "cheat" is to connect through a 10baseT (not 10/100, just 10) hub (just use a short patch cable to connect it to either your router or your squeezebox.
When network gear gets connected, it checks with the gear at the other end and will not run any faster than that remote gear. Meanwhile, the remote gear is doing the same thing (this is called "negotiation" or "auto-negotiation").
This may work - I've done it with long-ish runs (about the same as yours) - but 10baseT has the same length limitation as 100Tx.
I suspect that half duplex might work for you (the parties at either end take turns talking - like CB radio), but these days, a router you can force into half duplex will likely be quite expensive.

Yes, you can run power over your ethernet cable.
It's called "power over ethernet" (or "PoE"). Do you have a dry place for that intermediate switch to go? There are weatherproof ones, but then you're getting into industrial gear (and industrial prices).

bobkoure
2010-06-01, 11:43
...that electrically the data in each direction run on separate pairs in a TP cable when running in normal 10 and 100 Mbit modes. Hence, only one transmitter and one transceiver in each direction for each segment.
Looks like Rx and Tx pairs are coupled together with CSMA/CD, so the timings (length) still hold.
Have you tried this with, say 1000' of UTP with a single device at either end? Did it work? What switches did you use?

Soulkeeper
2010-06-01, 11:50
It played a couple songs
Promising.


but after a few minutes wouldn't recognize my network.
Did you try this before or after you stretched the cable out straight? If the cable was still curled up, that would degrade performance.


If I'm placing a switch 100 feet from termination, does it matter which end I place the switch on? Router side or squeezebox side?
Place it nearest the poorest quality network card. Whether that's your Squeezebox or your router, I don't know.

alfista
2010-06-01, 18:02
Looks like Rx and Tx pairs are coupled together with CSMA/CD, so the timings (length) still hold.
Have you tried this with, say 1000' of UTP with a single device at either end? Did it work? What switches did you use?
No, in a network without hubs there is no connection between Rx and Tx. As long as you run half duplex the CSMA/CD functions are still enabled but there are no real collisions. The devices will consider it to be a collision if they detect something on Rx while sending on Tx, this is however a "false positive". In full duplex the fact that no real collisions can happen is used and the CSMA/CD is disabled.
From a timing standpoint, the "collision length" in the type of networks where real collisions may happen, or the length at which the mechanism no longer works is roughly 600 ft between the nodes farthest apart. So even if this single cable would be considered a collision domain, it is still within that limit.
I haven't tried cables that long but with devices of decent quality at each end, a cable within spec and careful termination I believe 500 ft should work. Yes, it's roughly 50% over spec, but this is technology that in my experience has a fair amount of margin. Cable quality in particulat could be an issue that is difficult to check, I recently read of someone who had to redo all the wiring in a new house since the cheap CAT6 cable he bought was so way off spec that it hardly worked at all.

servies
2010-06-01, 23:51
Sorry but it's not. Even with ancient wiring, signal quality is fine after this distance. Try it - scopes are cheap and handheld these days. That's not the issue.

The issue is timing and the "length" of the packet (literal length, as in the length of wire the packet occupies, given the speed of electrons in a conductor).
Then explain the following:

In most cases a cabling solution is developed to support a
faster transmission protocol. Today’s fastest protocol over
UTP cable is 10GBase-T (10,000Base-T) transmission. This
is supported by Cat 6 for a limited distance of 37
to 55 meters, and by Augmented Cat 6 to 100 meters.
source: http://www.adc.com/us/en/Library/Literature/105011AE.pdf

The signal length stays the same, the protocol stays the same, the signal speed within the medium will be approximately the same, but the maximum length of the medium is not the same... So it probably has nothing to do with the speed of the medium and the signal length...

Cat 6 does give a much better signal to noise ratio
than 5e, at all frequencies.(same source as above)
That is probably the reason for that maximum of 100 meters...
There are no collisions between 2 directly UTP connected devices.

bobkoure
2010-06-02, 07:46
Given that lief is looking for a solution to longer distance with 10baseT or 100Tx, I'd suggest we stick to those protocols.

[trying really hard to be nice]
That said, what on earth makes you think that timing of 10GBase-T has bearing on 10/100? Of course there are SQ length issues - we're talking 500MHZ gear here. That's pretty near PCI-X 2.0, which, itself, was an accomplishment - over a few inches.
[/trying really hard to be nice]

pfarrell
2010-06-02, 07:57
bobkoure wrote:
> [trying really hard to be nice]
> That said, what on -earth- makes you think that timing of 10GBase-T has
> bearing on 10/100? Of -course- there are SQ length issues - we're
> talking 500MHZ gear here. [/trying really hard to be nice]

You betcha, FM radio stations use ~100mHz, so a 500 foot cable is pretty
much a big assed antenna. At RF frequencies, everything is very weird.
At high RF frequencies, even the pros make weird predictions.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

bobkoure
2010-06-03, 18:26
So... lief, did you try putting a switch on either end of that long wire? I'm assuming that's how you tested, but don't know.
If you're getting a bit of throughput, forcing the switches to use 10 rather than 100 might be all you need.
I've an extra 10baseT hub you're welcome to if you want to check this and are in the Boston area.
Otherwise, there's ebay - and just stopping into a computer repair place and and seeing if they've got a 10bt router you could borrow for a half day. That's the cheapest way to force the protocol to 10 that I know.
I've done this with success with a couple of 400' runs.

NB: Both 10 and 100 have 100m limits, I have a few theories as to why 10 is more resilient at somewhat over-spec lengths - but they're just theories (and back to CSMA/CD timings, bit wire lengths, etc.). My experience is that it does work, however.

There's also PoE, which isn't that expensive if you already have a dry place to put the gear.

Hoping this is helpful...

Soulkeeper
2010-06-04, 03:44
lief

Ahem, it's Leif. For you English speaking people, it's pronounced like "Layph". Hope that helps. ;) Ok then, carry on ... interesting discussions about RF here ...

bobkoure
2010-06-04, 08:47
erm... right - if I was using his name - but I'm using his username. I'd guess that the person with the username lief is actually named Lief - but I wasn't making that supposition. Some of the folks who use a recognizable name as a username don't actually use that name in personal life. Names from history (I'd be pretty sure of it if someone used "gaiusjulius" but it's loads harder to spot if it's a character from fiction. "Aramis"? real name? 3 musketeers fan? On the other side, I have a friend named "Galen", which I would have assumed was a historical name (author of one of the first anatomical treatises). I'm pretty sure he uses it online - and most folks probably guess that it isn't his actual name.
So, I'm lazy and use the username, however I find it.

Thanks for the bit on pronunciation. We learn in school about the son of Eric the red, but everyone pronounces it "leef". Surprising that Lief isn't a common English name, given the extent of the danelaw in the 11th and 12th century. Well, we kept the "th" words - which continue to bedevil English learners (my wife teaches English as a second language) - so there! :)

leif
2010-06-04, 10:57
If my cat5e 300 + foot ethernet cable gets cut will I be able to splice it back together?

maggior
2010-06-04, 11:04
You can splice it together by putting plugs on the ends to be joined and plug them into a coupler.

However, I would try to avoid that. Any "repairs" to the cable introduces another potential failure point and potential for impacting the signal negatively, especially at the run lengths you are talking about.

pfarrell
2010-06-04, 11:18
On 06/04/2010 01:57 PM, leif wrote:
> If my cat5e 300 + foot ethernet cable gets cut will I be able to splice
> it back together?

The precise answer is "maybe"

So put it in a conduit. Or just be prepared to replace it, its only
about $40 of cable.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

JJZolx
2010-06-04, 11:39
If my cat5e 300 + foot ethernet cable gets cut will I be able to splice it back together?

Is that cable 600, 500, 400, or now 300 feet long? Has the cabin been moving while you're doing all this?

If you're working at lengths that are borderline, then I hope it's obvious that this could only make things worse. If I had to make a repair like that I'd punch one end down into and IDC jack and the other into a plug. If you're burying the cable naked under a couple inches of dirt, or stringing it through the trees, then you'll want to protect the connection from moisture by shrink tubing and/or duct taping the hell out of it.

leif
2010-06-04, 11:45
Does it matter what color order I use inside of ehternet jacket as long as they match up on either end? The reason I ask if cable can be spliced first of all if my cable get's cut accidentally I don't want to have to replace my 400 foot cable if it can be repaired. Placing a coupler between my router and my $35 dollar Bestbuy switch should be ok since it's under 100 feet on that side right? This will allow me to try one more time to span the entire length without a switch since I found a new route that's at least 30 foot shorter than the 400 foot one that failed. I'll cut the extra slack off, measure it and let you guys know by how much shorter my new cable is and if it works. If it fails I'll be able to cut off a length from the cable just long enough to span distance from switch and shack and I'll place a coupler on the shorter side of the cable of the ethernet cable that goes into my router since it will then need about an extra 20 foot of ethernet cable attached to it to accomidate the extra length the switch needs. Or will adding a coupler between my router and switch even though it's under 100 feet weaken the signal the switch get's and lesson the signal strength the switch will be able to shoot out to shack? If this is the case then perhaps I shouldn't use a coupler between the 100 foot run between router and switch and instead discard the shorter length of the two cables from my cut I make of my 400 feet cable and instead install a new cable to switch from router that is 20 feet longer to acomidate the extra length needed for the switch.

pfarrell
2010-06-04, 11:50
On 06/04/2010 02:45 PM, leif wrote:
>
> Does it matter what color order I use inside of ehternet jacket as long
> as they match up on either end?

Yes, it matters. And for long lengths, it matters a lot.

You can decide whether to use 568B or the older 568A, but most folks
just use 568B, since that is what 99% of all commercial patch cables use.

Image of how to do it properly.

http://www.pfarrell.com/misc/rj45_patch.gif


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

leif
2010-06-04, 12:11
Yikes, I'm sure I paired my wires differently. I'll re-terminate my ends properly at my shorter run length and report back. If fails and I decide to attach a coupler to shorter run to switch from router, is a keystone jack preferable to a coupler? Is there loss introduced in either of these connections? In other words if putting a coupler in between router-switch and signal is making it to switch but still isn't being relayed to the longer distance from switch to shack, might it be relayed sufficiently if switch was instead fed a single uncoupled 100 foot cable from router?

Soulkeeper
2010-06-05, 06:27
Is there loss introduced in either of these connections?

Yes, there is.

To minimize loss, you have to solder the wires together, while taking care to maintain the individual twist lengths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_5_cable#Individual_twist_lengths).

bobkoure
2010-06-07, 18:57
I've found incorrectly wired (wrong order) on a couple of sites. Data rate goes to hell - and it's not obvious, right off, what's wrong as, if you use a cable continuity tester, the lights light on both ends. in proper order. BUT ethernet over unshielded twisted pair ONLY works if Rx is on one pair and Tx is on another (doesn't matter which pairs, so long as it's the same on both ends - but they have to actually be pairs - the pairs of wires that are twisted around each other).
If you're not sure what you're doing, then, by all means, stick to the standard. 568B, as Pat mentions, is a good way to go.

If you didn't have your wiring setup this way, I'd suggest crimping on a couple of plugs and testing before looking for shorter routes or cutting cable.
As I'd mentioned earlier, I've had a few 400' runs work fine at 10bt full duplex. So if it still doesn't work, I'd still look for a way to force the speed down to 10. This will be plenty fast enough for your squeezebox.