HELP fiber to cat 5 changeove problems IS it necessary to use a crossover cable from the switch to the media convertor?

I have been in here before and got help from you guys.

I have been working for some time on this and thought I had it licked.

Two metal buildings 150' apart that had been connected for years with
coax through a 2" PVC pipe.

One building is the "PLANT" which has 2 workstations only and the
other building "OFFICES"

First,I went nuts trying to get my fish tape through this 150' 2" PVC
pipe to the point where I finally had to dig up 12' of the thing and
beat hell out of it to get the tape by a coupling.
(besides the fact the idiot who laid the pipe initially has 5 90's in
a continuous pipe)

I have a media convertor on each end (MILAN 180C) that the CAT 5 is
plugged into (a patch cord from a switch)

It is one meter long on the plant side, but 100' approximately on the
OFFICE side.

I get no signal with cat 5 up to 150' fiber between two media
convertors.

I have network at the end of the CAT 5, the cable has been tested and
I also pulled a secondary CAT 5 through the PVC to connect in case
this FIBER deal didn't work right away. (BOY AM I GLAD I DID!!!)

so it's CAT 5 from the main switch to a convertor, to 150' of fiber in
an underground PVC pipe then a convertor and a switch to the 2
stations in the plant.

Any ideas?


Finally now I get the new fiber in and connected and I get no activity
and no connection.

Any help here now would be appreciated.

Cat 5 from a switch 100' away to the media convertor at one end, and a
switch immediately right after the convertor at the other end.

Someone said I need a CROSSOVER CABLE from the switch to the
convertor. Also, with the one switch 100' away on one end does that
matter? Should I install a switch there at the point it changes over?


Regards,

Roscoe aka MrShade

Roscoe Pendoscoe wrote:
> I have been in here before and got help from you guys.
>
> I have been working for some time on this and thought I had it licked.
>
> Two metal buildings 150' apart that had been connected for years with
> coax through a 2" PVC pipe.
>
> One building is the "PLANT" which has 2 workstations only and the
> other building "OFFICES"
>
> First,I went nuts trying to get my fish tape through this 150' 2" PVC
> pipe to the point where I finally had to dig up 12' of the thing and
> beat hell out of it to get the tape by a coupling.
> (besides the fact the idiot who laid the pipe initially has 5 90's in
> a continuous pipe)
>
> I have a media convertor on each end (MILAN 180C) that the CAT 5 is
> plugged into (a patch cord from a switch)
>
> It is one meter long on the plant side, but 100' approximately on the
> OFFICE side.
>
> I get no signal with cat 5 up to 150' fiber between two media
> convertors.
>
> I have network at the end of the CAT 5, the cable has been tested and
> I also pulled a secondary CAT 5 through the PVC to connect in case
> this FIBER deal didn't work right away. (BOY AM I GLAD I DID!!!)
>
> so it's CAT 5 from the main switch to a convertor, to 150' of fiber in
> an underground PVC pipe then a convertor and a switch to the 2
> stations in the plant.
>
> Any ideas?
>
>
> Finally now I get the new fiber in and connected and I get no activity
> and no connection.
>
> Any help here now would be appreciated.
>
> Cat 5 from a switch 100' away to the media convertor at one end, and a
> switch immediately right after the convertor at the other end.
>
> Someone said I need a CROSSOVER CABLE from the switch to the
> convertor.

It depends on the particular equipment. Some switches auto-sense.
Other equipment has some means for inserting the equivalent of a
crossover -- often that's called an "uplink" port. If your status
LEDs are off, and you're sure the equipment is good and powered up,
there's a pretty good chance that a crossover is what it wants.
Try it and see. You can couple a short crossover to the long cable,
and use a crossover directly on the other end -- if the LEDs suddenly
come on, Bob's your uncle.

Also, with the one switch 100' away on one end does that
> matter?

no, you should be good to 100 meters, assuming you're using properly
installed Cat5 cable

Should I install a switch there at the point it changes over?

no, unless there are other facts warranting it

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Roscoe aka MrShade


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:35:44 GMT, CJT <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Roscoe Pendoscoe wrote:
>> I have been in here before and got help from you guys.
>>
>> I have been working for some time on this and thought I had it licked.
>>
>> Two metal buildings 150' apart that had been connected for years with
>> coax through a 2" PVC pipe.
>>
>> One building is the "PLANT" which has 2 workstations only and the
>> other building "OFFICES"
>>
>> First,I went nuts trying to get my fish tape through this 150' 2" PVC
>> pipe to the point where I finally had to dig up 12' of the thing and
>> beat hell out of it to get the tape by a coupling.
>> (besides the fact the idiot who laid the pipe initially has 5 90's in
>> a continuous pipe)
>>
>> I have a media convertor on each end (MILAN 180C) that the CAT 5 is
>> plugged into (a patch cord from a switch)
>>
>> It is one meter long on the plant side, but 100' approximately on the
>> OFFICE side.
>>
>> I get no signal with cat 5 up to 150' fiber between two media
>> convertors.
>>
>> I have network at the end of the CAT 5, the cable has been tested and
>> I also pulled a secondary CAT 5 through the PVC to connect in case
>> this FIBER deal didn't work right away. (BOY AM I GLAD I DID!!!)
>>
>> so it's CAT 5 from the main switch to a convertor, to 150' of fiber in
>> an underground PVC pipe then a convertor and a switch to the 2
>> stations in the plant.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
>>
>> Finally now I get the new fiber in and connected and I get no activity
>> and no connection.
>>
>> Any help here now would be appreciated.
>>
>> Cat 5 from a switch 100' away to the media convertor at one end, and a
>> switch immediately right after the convertor at the other end.

ran my tester on the section from the switch 100' away and shows GOOD.
Actually have the network running fine with the extra CAT 5 I pulled
along with the FIBER that was to be replacing COAX.. Put some ends on
it and plugged into the switch and it works fine.

Actually a bit speedier than the old COAX.

That would mean the fiber is not connecting....yes?

Have the MILAN 180C media convertor on each end. Moved a jumper that
mentioned auto-sensing full or half-duplex which I changed with no
luck.

The SMC mini switches I believe mention that a crossover is not
needed............who knows.

Now, I am an ELECTRICIAN with limited networking experience. I
purchased 2 spools (100m) of fiber with pre-installed SC ends on them.
One to use, one for a spare just in case.

Since I am no expert here, does it matter what TYPE of fiber? "NEW EMC
100M FIBER OPTIC SC TO SC FIBRE SPOOL EMC1046" 50/125
>>
>> Someone said I need a CROSSOVER CABLE from the switch to the
>> convertor.
>
>It depends on the particular equipment. Some switches auto-sense.
>Other equipment has some means for inserting the equivalent of a
>crossover -- often that's called an "uplink" port. If your status
>LEDs are off, and you're sure the equipment is good and powered up,
>there's a pretty good chance that a crossover is what it wants.
>Try it and see. You can couple a short crossover to the long cable,
>and use a crossover directly on the other end -- if the LEDs suddenly
>come on, Bob's your uncle.

I will try Wednesday or Thursday with the crossover

The manual says any port this switch will auto uplink though

All lights are green, no activity.
>
>Also, with the one switch 100' away on one end does that
>> matter?
>
>no, you should be good to 100 meters, assuming you're using properly
>installed Cat5 cable
>
>Should I install a switch there at the point it changes over?
>
>no, unless there are other facts warranting it

I have been trying to get this job done for the better part of 2
months. Off and on of course.

>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Roscoe aka MrShade

Regards,

Roscoe aka MrShade

Roscoe Pendoscoe wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:35:44 GMT, CJT <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>Roscoe Pendoscoe wrote:
>>
>>>I have been in here before and got help from you guys.
>>>
>>>I have been working for some time on this and thought I had it licked.
>>>
>>>Two metal buildings 150' apart that had been connected for years with
>>>coax through a 2" PVC pipe.
>>>
>>>One building is the "PLANT" which has 2 workstations only and the
>>>other building "OFFICES"
>>>
>>>First,I went nuts trying to get my fish tape through this 150' 2" PVC
>>>pipe to the point where I finally had to dig up 12' of the thing and
>>>beat hell out of it to get the tape by a coupling.
>>>(besides the fact the idiot who laid the pipe initially has 5 90's in
>>>a continuous pipe)
>>>
>>>I have a media convertor on each end (MILAN 180C) that the CAT 5 is
>>>plugged into (a patch cord from a switch)
>>>
>>>It is one meter long on the plant side, but 100' approximately on the
>>>OFFICE side.
>>>
>>>I get no signal with cat 5 up to 150' fiber between two media
>>>convertors.
>>>
>>>I have network at the end of the CAT 5, the cable has been tested and
>>>I also pulled a secondary CAT 5 through the PVC to connect in case
>>>this FIBER deal didn't work right away. (BOY AM I GLAD I DID!!!)
>>>
>>>so it's CAT 5 from the main switch to a convertor, to 150' of fiber in
>>>an underground PVC pipe then a convertor and a switch to the 2
>>>stations in the plant.
>>>
>>>Any ideas?
>>>
>>>
>>>Finally now I get the new fiber in and connected and I get no activity
>>>and no connection.
>>>
>>>Any help here now would be appreciated.
>>>
>>>Cat 5 from a switch 100' away to the media convertor at one end, and a
>>>switch immediately right after the convertor at the other end.
>
>
> ran my tester on the section from the switch 100' away and shows GOOD.

That's probably just a continuity test. If the pairings aren't being
honored, the cable can look good (i.e. continuous) but fail at
frequency. What's worse (and could be happening here) is that if the
cable isn't wired correctly, it can pass continuity testing, work with
_some_ combinations of equipment, and yet fail with other (more fussy)
equipment.

Are these professionally made cables?

> Actually have the network running fine with the extra CAT 5 I pulled
> along with the FIBER that was to be replacing COAX.. Put some ends on
> it and plugged into the switch and it works fine.
>
> Actually a bit speedier than the old COAX.
>
> That would mean the fiber is not connecting....yes?

That sounds right.

>
> Have the MILAN 180C media convertor on each end. Moved a jumper that
> mentioned auto-sensing full or half-duplex which I changed with no
> luck.

There are several kinds of auto-sensing. The one that's important
here is auto-sensing whether a crossover is needed. That's different
from FDX/HDX and speed negotiation.

>
> The SMC mini switches I believe mention that a crossover is not
> needed............who knows.
>
> Now, I am an ELECTRICIAN with limited networking experience. I
> purchased 2 spools (100m) of fiber with pre-installed SC ends on them.
> One to use, one for a spare just in case.
>
> Since I am no expert here, does it matter what TYPE of fiber? "NEW EMC
> 100M FIBER OPTIC SC TO SC FIBRE SPOOL EMC1046" 50/125
>

I'm not a fiber expert, but I believe it does matter. The docs for the
fiber converters should say.

>>>Someone said I need a CROSSOVER CABLE from the switch to the
>>>convertor.
>>
>>It depends on the particular equipment. Some switches auto-sense.
>>Other equipment has some means for inserting the equivalent of a
>>crossover -- often that's called an "uplink" port. If your status
>>LEDs are off, and you're sure the equipment is good and powered up,
>>there's a pretty good chance that a crossover is what it wants.
>>Try it and see. You can couple a short crossover to the long cable,
>>and use a crossover directly on the other end -- if the LEDs suddenly
>>come on, Bob's your uncle.
>
>
> I will try Wednesday or Thursday with the crossover
>
> The manual says any port this switch will auto uplink though
>
> All lights are green, no activity.
>

If the lights are green, the crossover is probably not needed.
However, it's a cheap thing to try, and I've seen (rarely) equipment
that purports to auto-detect everything and get all set up
automatically, but still only works when things are made explicit.

>>Also, with the one switch 100' away on one end does that
>>
>>>matter?
>>
>>no, you should be good to 100 meters, assuming you're using properly
>>installed Cat5 cable
>>
>>Should I install a switch there at the point it changes over?
>>
>>no, unless there are other facts warranting it
>
>
> I have been trying to get this job done for the better part of 2
> months. Off and on of course.
>

Good thing the fallback Cat5 works!

>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Roscoe aka MrShade
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Roscoe aka MrShade


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:30:47 GMT, CJT <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

First, let me thank you for taking your time to help me.

Really appreciate it.

>Roscoe Pendoscoe wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:35:44 GMT, CJT <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Roscoe Pendoscoe wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have been in here before and got help from you guys.
>>>>
>>>>I have been working for some time on this and thought I had it licked.
>>>>
>>>>Two metal buildings 150' apart that had been connected for years with
>>>>coax through a 2" PVC pipe.
>>>>
>>>>One building is the "PLANT" which has 2 workstations only and the
>>>>other building "OFFICES"
>>>>
>>>>First,I went nuts trying to get my fish tape through this 150' 2" PVC
>>>>pipe to the point where I finally had to dig up 12' of the thing and
>>>>beat hell out of it to get the tape by a coupling.
>>>>(besides the fact the idiot who laid the pipe initially has 5 90's in
>>>>a continuous pipe)
>>>>
>>>>I have a media convertor on each end (MILAN 180C) that the CAT 5 is
>>>>plugged into (a patch cord from a switch)
>>>>
>>>>It is one meter long on the plant side, but 100' approximately on the
>>>>OFFICE side.
>>>>
>>>>I get no signal with cat 5 up to 150' fiber between two media
>>>>convertors.
>>>>
>>>>I have network at the end of the CAT 5, the cable has been tested and
>>>>I also pulled a secondary CAT 5 through the PVC to connect in case
>>>>this FIBER deal didn't work right away. (BOY AM I GLAD I DID!!!)
>>>>
>>>>so it's CAT 5 from the main switch to a convertor, to 150' of fiber in
>>>>an underground PVC pipe then a convertor and a switch to the 2
>>>>stations in the plant.
>>>>
>>>>Any ideas?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Finally now I get the new fiber in and connected and I get no activity
>>>>and no connection.
>>>>
>>>>Any help here now would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>Cat 5 from a switch 100' away to the media convertor at one end, and a
>>>>switch immediately right after the convertor at the other end.
>>
>>
>> ran my tester on the section from the switch 100' away and shows GOOD.
>
>That's probably just a continuity test. If the pairings aren't being
>honored, the cable can look good (i.e. continuous) but fail at
>frequency. What's worse (and could be happening here) is that if the
>cable isn't wired correctly, it can pass continuity testing, work with
>_some_ combinations of equipment, and yet fail with other (more fussy)
>equipment.

Yes, just a continuity test
>
>Are these professionally made cables?

Well, I am a professional.........

No, I ran them and put ends on them. No small feat as this is a huge
building with thirty foot ceilings. I wouldn't want to have to do it
again. Comes out of the office where the server and switch reside,
enters a warehouse. Requires the use of a lift.
>
>> Actually have the network running fine with the extra CAT 5 I pulled
>> along with the FIBER that was to be replacing COAX.. Put some ends on
>> it and plugged into the switch and it works fine.
>>
>> Actually a bit speedier than the old COAX.
>>
The 2 users on the far end report less connection problems with the
CAT 5 but I still have a copper connection which I was trying to get
away from.
>> That would mean the fiber is not connecting....yes?
>
>That sounds right.
>
I did pull both spools of fiber through and tried connecting both, so
I am pretty well certain I do not have bad fiber run. Both couldn't be
bad.

I opted for factory installed ends on the fiber as I watched a video
"HOW TO".......no thanks, plus the cost of tools for a one time deal.
But, do they put the ends on these things in the proper manner?

I guess they would have to, be some bad feedback if not.
>>
>> Have the MILAN 180C media convertor on each end. Moved a jumper that
>> mentioned auto-sensing full or half-duplex which I changed with no
>> luck.
>
>There are several kinds of auto-sensing. The one that's important
>here is auto-sensing whether a crossover is needed. That's different
>from FDX/HDX and speed negotiation.
>
>>
>> The SMC mini switches I believe mention that a crossover is not
>> needed............who knows.
>>
>> Now, I am an ELECTRICIAN with limited networking experience. I
>> purchased 2 spools (100m) of fiber with pre-installed SC ends on them.
>> One to use, one for a spare just in case.
>>
>> Since I am no expert here, does it matter what TYPE of fiber? "NEW EMC
>> 100M FIBER OPTIC SC TO SC FIBRE SPOOL EMC1046" 50/125
>>
>
>I'm not a fiber expert, but I believe it does matter. The docs for the
>fiber converters should say.

When I researched this job and got info from a couple folks, I don't
remember anything regarding the fiber.

When they say single mode or dual mode, is that just a fancy way to
say a TX/RX in one cable, i.e. 2 fibers together an A channel and a B
channel so to speak?

Single mode would be just one?
>
>>>>Someone said I need a CROSSOVER CABLE from the switch to the
>>>>convertor.
>>>
>>>It depends on the particular equipment. Some switches auto-sense.
>>>Other equipment has some means for inserting the equivalent of a
>>>crossover -- often that's called an "uplink" port. If your status
>>>LEDs are off, and you're sure the equipment is good and powered up,
>>>there's a pretty good chance that a crossover is what it wants.
>>>Try it and see. You can couple a short crossover to the long cable,
>>>and use a crossover directly on the other end -- if the LEDs suddenly
>>>come on, Bob's your uncle.
>>
>>
>> I will try Wednesday or Thursday with the crossover
>>
>> The manual says any port this switch will auto uplink though
>>
>> All lights are green, no activity.
>>
>
>If the lights are green, the crossover is probably not needed.
>However, it's a cheap thing to try, and I've seen (rarely) equipment
>that purports to auto-detect everything and get all set up
>automatically, but still only works when things are made explicit.
>
>>>Also, with the one switch 100' away on one end does that
>>>
>>>>matter?
>>>
>>>no, you should be good to 100 meters, assuming you're using properly
>>>installed Cat5 cable
>>>
>>>Should I install a switch there at the point it changes over?
>>>
>>>no, unless there are other facts warranting it
>>
>>
>> I have been trying to get this job done for the better part of 2
>> months. Off and on of course.
>>
>
>Good thing the fallback Cat5 works!

Yeah boy! I'd have a boatload of trouble.

Did I mention my Wife works there?

I.T. and Special Projects Manager. Already I am catching an earful of
why & how come it's not done.

The owners are cash poor and I purchased the materials and equipment
on eBAY to save them some money and have not submitted a bill for any
labor yet. I paid my apprentice to dig the hole and help pull the
wire(s).

Gets me more nervous by the day. If I don't get this thing to work
I'll be out some cash I know because she'll insist I eat the entire
thing.

Yeesh!

Anyway, thanks again!!!!!!!!!
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Roscoe aka MrShade
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Roscoe aka MrShade

Regards,

Roscoe aka MrShade

Roscoe Pendoscoe wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:30:47 GMT, CJT <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> First, let me thank you for taking your time to help me.
>
> Really appreciate it.

I just hope together we can ultimately solve the mystery.
>
>
>>Roscoe Pendoscoe wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:35:44 GMT, CJT <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Roscoe Pendoscoe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have been in here before and got help from you guys.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have been working for some time on this and thought I had it licked.
>>>>>
>>>>>Two metal buildings 150' apart that had been connected for years with
>>>>>coax through a 2" PVC pipe.
>>>>>
>>>>>One building is the "PLANT" which has 2 workstations only and the
>>>>>other building "OFFICES"
>>>>>
>>>>>First,I went nuts trying to get my fish tape through this 150' 2" PVC
>>>>>pipe to the point where I finally had to dig up 12' of the thing and
>>>>>beat hell out of it to get the tape by a coupling.
>>>>>(besides the fact the idiot who laid the pipe initially has 5 90's in
>>>>>a continuous pipe)
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a media convertor on each end (MILAN 180C) that the CAT 5 is
>>>>>plugged into (a patch cord from a switch)
>>>>>
>>>>>It is one meter long on the plant side, but 100' approximately on the
>>>>>OFFICE side.
>>>>>
>>>>>I get no signal with cat 5 up to 150' fiber between two media
>>>>>convertors.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have network at the end of the CAT 5, the cable has been tested and
>>>>>I also pulled a secondary CAT 5 through the PVC to connect in case
>>>>>this FIBER deal didn't work right away. (BOY AM I GLAD I DID!!!)
>>>>>
>>>>>so it's CAT 5 from the main switch to a convertor, to 150' of fiber in
>>>>>an underground PVC pipe then a convertor and a switch to the 2
>>>>>stations in the plant.
>>>>>
>>>>>Any ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Finally now I get the new fiber in and connected and I get no activity
>>>>>and no connection.
>>>>>
>>>>>Any help here now would be appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cat 5 from a switch 100' away to the media convertor at one end, and a
>>>>>switch immediately right after the convertor at the other end.
>>>
>>>
>>>ran my tester on the section from the switch 100' away and shows GOOD.
>>
>>That's probably just a continuity test. If the pairings aren't being
>>honored, the cable can look good (i.e. continuous) but fail at
>>frequency. What's worse (and could be happening here) is that if the
>>cable isn't wired correctly, it can pass continuity testing, work with
>>_some_ combinations of equipment, and yet fail with other (more fussy)
>>equipment.
>
>
> Yes, just a continuity test
>
>>Are these professionally made cables?
>
>
> Well, I am a professional.........

Well, here's a potential issue. Continuity is not enough. It is
vital that the pairings of the cable be maintained so that the two
sides of each differential signal be in the same twisted pair.
For historic reasons (ATT vs. the rest of the world +/-), there are
two associated standards, either one of which can be used.

This might help:

http://www.linksys.com/faqs/default.asp?fqid=20

A crossover cable, in essence, mixes the standards. (Hope that makes
sense.) If you Google

568a 568b

you'll turn up thousands of hits about the standards.

A typical symptom of cabling which does not honor the pairings is
that it will work at 10Mbps but not at 100Mbps (because crosstalk
and noise are less of an issue at the slower speed). Thus, you
might be able to check whether that's the problem by temporarily
forcing (via software or the insertion of 10base-T hubs on each
end) the system to run at 10Mbps.

This kind of thing is especially frustrating because some equipment
tolerates the associated problems much better than other equipment,
so that the precise configuration matters. Thus, if the copper/fiber
converters were less tolerant than your switches, you could generate
symptoms just like you're seeing.

If you were not careful to pick either 568a or 568b and stick with
it, I can almost guarantee that's your problem, and that re-terminating
the cables according to the standard will make a difference. Usenet
is chock full of discussions about this issue. Typically the complaint
is "My network worked fine until I went from 10 Mbps to 100 Mbps" or
"As soon as my cable length exceeded 30 (+/-) feet, it stopped working."

Another idea that occurs to me is to set up a very short fiber link
using a couple of PCs, your current drop cables, the wire-to-optical
converters, and a short length of fiber, and see whether you get
the connectivity that's now lacking.

>
> No, I ran them and put ends on them. No small feat as this is a huge
> building with thirty foot ceilings. I wouldn't want to have to do it
> again. Comes out of the office where the server and switch reside,
> enters a warehouse. Requires the use of a lift.
>

I doubt you'll have to re-run them, but you might have to redo the
terminations if the pairings are incorrect.

>>>Actually have the network running fine with the extra CAT 5 I pulled
>>>along with the FIBER that was to be replacing COAX.. Put some ends on
>>>it and plugged into the switch and it works fine.
>>>
>>>Actually a bit speedier than the old COAX.
>>>
>
> The 2 users on the far end report less connection problems with the
> CAT 5 but I still have a copper connection which I was trying to get
> away from.

With a Cat5 connection you should have _no_ connection problems
attributable to the wiring up to 100 meters unless you are in a
severe environment, IMHO. I run gigabit over Cat5 here, and
it just works.

>
>>>That would mean the fiber is not connecting....yes?
>>
>>That sounds right.
>>
>
> I did pull both spools of fiber through and tried connecting both, so
> I am pretty well certain I do not have bad fiber run. Both couldn't be
> bad.
>
> I opted for factory installed ends on the fiber as I watched a video
> "HOW TO".......no thanks, plus the cost of tools for a one time deal.
> But, do they put the ends on these things in the proper manner?
>
> I guess they would have to, be some bad feedback if not.
>
>>>Have the MILAN 180C media convertor on each end. Moved a jumper that
>>>mentioned auto-sensing full or half-duplex which I changed with no
>>>luck.
>>
>>There are several kinds of auto-sensing. The one that's important
>>here is auto-sensing whether a crossover is needed. That's different
>
>>from FDX/HDX and speed negotiation.
>
>>>The SMC mini switches I believe mention that a crossover is not
>>>needed............who knows.
>>>
>>>Now, I am an ELECTRICIAN with limited networking experience. I
>>>purchased 2 spools (100m) of fiber with pre-installed SC ends on them.
>>>One to use, one for a spare just in case.
>>>
>>>Since I am no expert here, does it matter what TYPE of fiber? "NEW EMC
>>>100M FIBER OPTIC SC TO SC FIBRE SPOOL EMC1046" 50/125
>>>
>>
>>I'm not a fiber expert, but I believe it does matter. The docs for the
>>fiber converters should say.
>
>
> When I researched this job and got info from a couple folks, I don't
> remember anything regarding the fiber.
>
> When they say single mode or dual mode, is that just a fancy way to
> say a TX/RX in one cable, i.e. 2 fibers together an A channel and a B
> channel so to speak?

I thought it was more fundamental with that, having to do with the
wavelengths of light they're designed to pass, but I don't claim to
be an expert.

>
> Single mode would be just one?
>
>>>>>Someone said I need a CROSSOVER CABLE from the switch to the
>>>>>convertor.
>>>>
>>>>It depends on the particular equipment. Some switches auto-sense.
>>>>Other equipment has some means for inserting the equivalent of a
>>>>crossover -- often that's called an "uplink" port. If your status
>>>>LEDs are off, and you're sure the equipment is good and powered up,
>>>>there's a pretty good chance that a crossover is what it wants.
>>>>Try it and see. You can couple a short crossover to the long cable,
>>>>and use a crossover directly on the other end -- if the LEDs suddenly
>>>>come on, Bob's your uncle.
>>>
>>>
>>>I will try Wednesday or Thursday with the crossover
>>>
>>>The manual says any port this switch will auto uplink though
>>>
>>>All lights are green, no activity.
>>>
>>
>>If the lights are green, the crossover is probably not needed.
>>However, it's a cheap thing to try, and I've seen (rarely) equipment
>>that purports to auto-detect everything and get all set up
>>automatically, but still only works when things are made explicit.
>>
>>
>>>>Also, with the one switch 100' away on one end does that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>matter?
>>>>
>>>>no, you should be good to 100 meters, assuming you're using properly
>>>>installed Cat5 cable
>>>>
>>>>Should I install a switch there at the point it changes over?
>>>>
>>>>no, unless there are other facts warranting it
>>>
>>>
>>>I have been trying to get this job done for the better part of 2
>>>months. Off and on of course.
>>>
>>
>>Good thing the fallback Cat5 works!
>
>
> Yeah boy! I'd have a boatload of trouble.
>
> Did I mention my Wife works there?
>
> I.T. and Special Projects Manager. Already I am catching an earful of
> why & how come it's not done.
>
> The owners are cash poor and I purchased the materials and equipment
> on eBAY to save them some money and have not submitted a bill for any
> labor yet. I paid my apprentice to dig the hole and help pull the
> wire(s).
>
> Gets me more nervous by the day. If I don't get this thing to work
> I'll be out some cash I know because she'll insist I eat the entire
> thing.
>
> Yeesh!
>
> Anyway, thanks again!!!!!!!!!
>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Roscoe aka MrShade
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Roscoe aka MrShade
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Roscoe aka MrShade


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:38:48 GMT, CJT <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Roscoe Pendoscoe wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:30:47 GMT, CJT <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> First, let me thank you for taking your time to help me.
>>
>> Really appreciate it.
>
>I just hope together we can ultimately solve the mystery.
>>
>>
>>>Roscoe Pendoscoe wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:35:44 GMT, CJT <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Roscoe Pendoscoe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have been in here before and got help from you guys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have been working for some time on this and thought I had it licked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Two metal buildings 150' apart that had been connected for years with
>>>>>>coax through a 2" PVC pipe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One building is the "PLANT" which has 2 workstations only and the
>>>>>>other building "OFFICES"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>First,I went nuts trying to get my fish tape through this 150' 2" PVC
>>>>>>pipe to the point where I finally had to dig up 12' of the thing and
>>>>>>beat hell out of it to get the tape by a coupling.
>>>>>>(besides the fact the idiot who laid the pipe initially has 5 90's in
>>>>>>a continuous pipe)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have a media convertor on each end (MILAN 180C) that the CAT 5 is
>>>>>>plugged into (a patch cord from a switch)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is one meter long on the plant side, but 100' approximately on the
>>>>>>OFFICE side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I get no signal with cat 5 up to 150' fiber between two media
>>>>>>convertors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have network at the end of the CAT 5, the cable has been tested and
>>>>>>I also pulled a secondary CAT 5 through the PVC to connect in case
>>>>>>this FIBER deal didn't work right away. (BOY AM I GLAD I DID!!!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>so it's CAT 5 from the main switch to a convertor, to 150' of fiber in
>>>>>>an underground PVC pipe then a convertor and a switch to the 2
>>>>>>stations in the plant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Any ideas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Finally now I get the new fiber in and connected and I get no activity
>>>>>>and no connection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Any help here now would be appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cat 5 from a switch 100' away to the media convertor at one end, and a
>>>>>>switch immediately right after the convertor at the other end.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>ran my tester on the section from the switch 100' away and shows GOOD.
>>>
>>>That's probably just a continuity test. If the pairings aren't being
>>>honored, the cable can look good (i.e. continuous) but fail at
>>>frequency. What's worse (and could be happening here) is that if the
>>>cable isn't wired correctly, it can pass continuity testing, work with
>>>_some_ combinations of equipment, and yet fail with other (more fussy)
>>>equipment.
>>
>>
>> Yes, just a continuity test
>>
>>>Are these professionally made cables?
>>
>>
>> Well, I am a professional.........
>
>Well, here's a potential issue. Continuity is not enough. It is
>vital that the pairings of the cable be maintained so that the two
>sides of each differential signal be in the same twisted pair.
>For historic reasons (ATT vs. the rest of the world +/-), there are
>two associated standards, either one of which can be used.

The magic words.........The old owner had his own ideas how 568B
should be done.........with the pin side UP. I only discovered that by
redoing all the inside the office connections.

I think you have done me a great big favor.

I didn't think that what was in the plant coming out of the switch
would matter.

YES YES!!

It is 4:30 AM Thursday and I am off to my regular gig.

Late today I will stop by and try.

THANK YOU!
>
>This might help:
>
>http://www.linksys.com/faqs/default.asp?fqid=20
>
>A crossover cable, in essence, mixes the standards. (Hope that makes
>sense.) If you Google
>
>568a 568b
>
>you'll turn up thousands of hits about the standards.
>
>A typical symptom of cabling which does not honor the pairings is
>that it will work at 10Mbps but not at 100Mbps (because crosstalk
>and noise are less of an issue at the slower speed). Thus, you
>might be able to check whether that's the problem by temporarily
>forcing (via software or the insertion of 10base-T hubs on each
>end) the system to run at 10Mbps.
>
>This kind of thing is especially frustrating because some equipment
>tolerates the associated problems much better than other equipment,
>so that the precise configuration matters. Thus, if the copper/fiber
>converters were less tolerant than your switches, you could generate
>symptoms just like you're seeing.
>
>If you were not careful to pick either 568a or 568b and stick with
>it, I can almost guarantee that's your problem, and that re-terminating
>the cables according to the standard will make a difference. Usenet
>is chock full of discussions about this issue. Typically the complaint
>is "My network worked fine until I went from 10 Mbps to 100 Mbps" or
>"As soon as my cable length exceeded 30 (+/-) feet, it stopped working."
>
>Another idea that occurs to me is to set up a very short fiber link
>using a couple of PCs, your current drop cables, the wire-to-optical
>converters, and a short length of fiber, and see whether you get
>the connectivity that's now lacking.
>
>>
>> No, I ran them and put ends on them. No small feat as this is a huge
>> building with thirty foot ceilings. I wouldn't want to have to do it
>> again. Comes out of the office where the server and switch reside,
>> enters a warehouse. Requires the use of a lift.
>>
>
>I doubt you'll have to re-run them, but you might have to redo the
>terminations if the pairings are incorrect.
>
>>>>Actually have the network running fine with the extra CAT 5 I pulled
>>>>along with the FIBER that was to be replacing COAX.. Put some ends on
>>>>it and plugged into the switch and it works fine.
>>>>
>>>>Actually a bit speedier than the old COAX.
>>>>
>>
>> The 2 users on the far end report less connection problems with the
>> CAT 5 but I still have a copper connection which I was trying to get
>> away from.
>
>With a Cat5 connection you should have _no_ connection problems
>attributable to the wiring up to 100 meters unless you are in a
>severe environment, IMHO. I run gigabit over Cat5 here, and
>it just works.
>
>>
>>>>That would mean the fiber is not connecting....yes?
>>>
>>>That sounds right.
>>>
>>
>> I did pull both spools of fiber through and tried connecting both, so
>> I am pretty well certain I do not have bad fiber run. Both couldn't be
>> bad.
>>
>> I opted for factory installed ends on the fiber as I watched a video
>> "HOW TO".......no thanks, plus the cost of tools for a one time deal.
>> But, do they put the ends on these things in the proper manner?
>>
>> I guess they would have to, be some bad feedback if not.
>>
>>>>Have the MILAN 180C media convertor on each end. Moved a jumper that
>>>>mentioned auto-sensing full or half-duplex which I changed with no
>>>>luck.
>>>
>>>There are several kinds of auto-sensing. The one that's important
>>>here is auto-sensing whether a crossover is needed. That's different
>>
>>>from FDX/HDX and speed negotiation.
>>
>>>>The SMC mini switches I believe mention that a crossover is not
>>>>needed............who knows.
>>>>
>>>>Now, I am an ELECTRICIAN with limited networking experience. I
>>>>purchased 2 spools (100m) of fiber with pre-installed SC ends on them.
>>>>One to use, one for a spare just in case.
>>>>
>>>>Since I am no expert here, does it matter what TYPE of fiber? "NEW EMC
>>>>100M FIBER OPTIC SC TO SC FIBRE SPOOL EMC1046" 50/125
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not a fiber expert, but I believe it does matter. The docs for the
>>>fiber converters should say.
>>
>>
>> When I researched this job and got info from a couple folks, I don't
>> remember anything regarding the fiber.
>>
>> When they say single mode or dual mode, is that just a fancy way to
>> say a TX/RX in one cable, i.e. 2 fibers together an A channel and a B
>> channel so to speak?
>
>I thought it was more fundamental with that, having to do with the
>wavelengths of light they're designed to pass, but I don't claim to
>be an expert.
>
>>
>> Single mode would be just one?
>>
>>>>>>Someone said I need a CROSSOVER CABLE from the switch to the
>>>>>>convertor.
>>>>>
>>>>>It depends on the particular equipment. Some switches auto-sense.
>>>>>Other equipment has some means for inserting the equivalent of a
>>>>>crossover -- often that's called an "uplink" port. If your status
>>>>>LEDs are off, and you're sure the equipment is good and powered up,
>>>>>there's a pretty good chance that a crossover is what it wants.
>>>>>Try it and see. You can couple a short crossover to the long cable,
>>>>>and use a crossover directly on the other end -- if the LEDs suddenly
>>>>>come on, Bob's your uncle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I will try Wednesday or Thursday with the crossover
>>>>
>>>>The manual says any port this switch will auto uplink though
>>>>
>>>>All lights are green, no activity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If the lights are green, the crossover is probably not needed.
>>>However, it's a cheap thing to try, and I've seen (rarely) equipment
>>>that purports to auto-detect everything and get all set up
>>>automatically, but still only works when things are made explicit.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Also, with the one switch 100' away on one end does that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>matter?
>>>>>
>>>>>no, you should be good to 100 meters, assuming you're using properly
>>>>>installed Cat5 cable
>>>>>
>>>>>Should I install a switch there at the point it changes over?
>>>>>
>>>>>no, unless there are other facts warranting it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have been trying to get this job done for the better part of 2
>>>>months. Off and on of course.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Good thing the fallback Cat5 works!
>>
>>
>> Yeah boy! I'd have a boatload of trouble.
>>
>> Did I mention my Wife works there?
>>
>> I.T. and Special Projects Manager. Already I am catching an earful of
>> why & how come it's not done.
>>
>> The owners are cash poor and I purchased the materials and equipment
>> on eBAY to save them some money and have not submitted a bill for any
>> labor yet. I paid my apprentice to dig the hole and help pull the
>> wire(s).
>>
>> Gets me more nervous by the day. If I don't get this thing to work
>> I'll be out some cash I know because she'll insist I eat the entire
>> thing.
>>
>> Yeesh!
>>
>> Anyway, thanks again!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Roscoe aka MrShade
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Roscoe aka MrShade
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Roscoe aka MrShade

Regards,

Roscoe aka MrShade

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:38:48 GMT, CJT <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>ran my tester on the section from the switch 100' away and shows GOOD.
>>>
>>>That's probably just a continuity test. If the pairings aren't being
>>>honored, the cable can look good (i.e. continuous) but fail at
>>>frequency. What's worse (and could be happening here) is that if the
>>>cable isn't wired correctly, it can pass continuity testing, work with
>>>_some_ combinations of equipment, and yet fail with other (more fussy)
>>>equipment.
>>
>>
>> Yes, just a continuity test
>>
>>>Are these professionally made cables?
>>
>>
>> Well, I am a professional.........
>
>Well, here's a potential issue. Continuity is not enough. It is
>vital that the pairings of the cable be maintained so that the two
>sides of each differential signal be in the same twisted pair.
>For historic reasons (ATT vs. the rest of the world +/-), there are
>two associated standards, either one of which can be used.
>
>This might help:
>
>http://www.linksys.com/faqs/default.asp?fqid=20
>
>A crossover cable, in essence, mixes the standards. (Hope that makes
>sense.) If you Google
>
>568a 568b
>
>you'll turn up thousands of hits about the standards.
>
>A typical symptom of cabling which does not honor the pairings is
>that it will work at 10Mbps but not at 100Mbps (because crosstalk
>and noise are less of an issue at the slower speed). Thus, you
>might be able to check whether that's the problem by temporarily
>forcing (via software or the insertion of 10base-T hubs on each
>end) the system to run at 10Mbps.

You will see I responded briefly this AM regarding the standard to
which the old property owner wired the offices.

When I went in to tidy-up some of the office connections that were
dropped out of the ceiling I found when I went to use jacks, I got no
connectivity whatsoever.

He is an engineer and programmer, so we are talking an educated fellow
here
>
>This kind of thing is especially frustrating because some equipment
>tolerates the associated problems much better than other equipment,
>so that the precise configuration matters. Thus, if the copper/fiber
>converters were less tolerant than your switches, you could generate
>symptoms just like you're seeing.
>
>If you were not careful to pick either 568a or 568b and stick with
>it, I can almost guarantee that's your problem, and that re-terminating
>the cables according to the standard will make a difference. Usenet
>is chock full of discussions about this issue. Typically the complaint
>is "My network worked fine until I went from 10 Mbps to 100 Mbps" or
>"As soon as my cable length exceeded 30 (+/-) feet, it stopped working."
>
>Another idea that occurs to me is to set up a very short fiber link
>using a couple of PCs, your current drop cables, the wire-to-optical
>converters, and a short length of fiber, and see whether you get
>the connectivity that's now lacking.
>
>>
>> No, I ran them and put ends on them. No small feat as this is a huge
>> building with thirty foot ceilings. I wouldn't want to have to do it
>> again. Comes out of the office where the server and switch reside,
>> enters a warehouse. Requires the use of a lift.
>>
>
>I doubt you'll have to re-run them, but you might have to redo the
>terminations if the pairings are incorrect.
>
>>>>Actually have the network running fine with the extra CAT 5 I pulled
>>>>along with the FIBER that was to be replacing COAX.. Put some ends on
>>>>it and plugged into the switch and it works fine.
>>>>
>>>>Actually a bit speedier than the old COAX.
>>>>
>>
>> The 2 users on the far end report less connection problems with the
>> CAT 5 but I still have a copper connection which I was trying to get
>> away from.
>
>With a Cat5 connection you should have _no_ connection problems
>attributable to the wiring up to 100 meters unless you are in a
>severe environment, IMHO. I run gigabit over Cat5 here, and
>it just works.
>
>>
>>>>That would mean the fiber is not connecting....yes?
>>>
>>>That sounds right.
>>>
>>
>> I did pull both spools of fiber through and tried connecting both, so
>> I am pretty well certain I do not have bad fiber run. Both couldn't be
>> bad.
>>
>> I opted for factory installed ends on the fiber as I watched a video
>> "HOW TO".......no thanks, plus the cost of tools for a one time deal.
>> But, do they put the ends on these things in the proper manner?
>>
>> I guess they would have to, be some bad feedback if not.
>>
>>>>Have the MILAN 180C media convertor on each end. Moved a jumper that
>>>>mentioned auto-sensing full or half-duplex which I changed with no
>>>>luck.
>>>
>>>There are several kinds of auto-sensing. The one that's important
>>>here is auto-sensing whether a crossover is needed. That's different
>>
>>>from FDX/HDX and speed negotiation.
>>
>>>>The SMC mini switches I believe mention that a crossover is not
>>>>needed............who knows.
>>>>
>>>>Now, I am an ELECTRICIAN with limited networking experience. I
>>>>purchased 2 spools (100m) of fiber with pre-installed SC ends on them.
>>>>One to use, one for a spare just in case.
>>>>
>>>>Since I am no expert here, does it matter what TYPE of fiber? "NEW EMC
>>>>100M FIBER OPTIC SC TO SC FIBRE SPOOL EMC1046" 50/125
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not a fiber expert, but I believe it does matter. The docs for the
>>>fiber converters should say.
>>
>>
>> When I researched this job and got info from a couple folks, I don't
>> remember anything regarding the fiber.
>>
>> When they say single mode or dual mode, is that just a fancy way to
>> say a TX/RX in one cable, i.e. 2 fibers together an A channel and a B
>> channel so to speak?
>
>I thought it was more fundamental with that, having to do with the
>wavelengths of light they're designed to pass, but I don't claim to
>be an expert.
>
>>
>> Single mode would be just one?
>>
>>>>>>Someone said I need a CROSSOVER CABLE from the switch to the
>>>>>>convertor.
>>>>>
>>>>>It depends on the particular equipment. Some switches auto-sense.
>>>>>Other equipment has some means for inserting the equivalent of a
>>>>>crossover -- often that's called an "uplink" port. If your status
>>>>>LEDs are off, and you're sure the equipment is good and powered up,
>>>>>there's a pretty good chance that a crossover is what it wants.
>>>>>Try it and see. You can couple a short crossover to the long cable,
>>>>>and use a crossover directly on the other end -- if the LEDs suddenly
>>>>>come on, Bob's your uncle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I will try Wednesday or Thursday with the crossover
>>>>
>>>>The manual says any port this switch will auto uplink though
>>>>
>>>>All lights are green, no activity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If the lights are green, the crossover is probably not needed.
>>>However, it's a cheap thing to try, and I've seen (rarely) equipment
>>>that purports to auto-detect everything and get all set up
>>>automatically, but still only works when things are made explicit.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Also, with the one switch 100' away on one end does that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>matter?
>>>>>
>>>>>no, you should be good to 100 meters, assuming you're using properly
>>>>>installed Cat5 cable
>>>>>
>>>>>Should I install a switch there at the point it changes over?
>>>>>
>>>>>no, unless there are other facts warranting it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have been trying to get this job done for the better part of 2
>>>>months. Off and on of course.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Good thing the fallback Cat5 works!
>>
>>
>> Yeah boy! I'd have a boatload of trouble.
>>
>> Did I mention my Wife works there?
>>
>> I.T. and Special Projects Manager. Already I am catching an earful of
>> why & how come it's not done.
>>
>> The owners are cash poor and I purchased the materials and equipment
>> on eBAY to save them some money and have not submitted a bill for any
>> labor yet. I paid my apprentice to dig the hole and help pull the
>> wire(s).
>>
>> Gets me more nervous by the day. If I don't get this thing to work
>> I'll be out some cash I know because she'll insist I eat the entire
>> thing.
>>
>> Yeesh!
>>
>> Anyway, thanks again!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Roscoe aka MrShade
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Roscoe aka MrShade
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Roscoe aka MrShade

Regards,

Roscoe aka MrShade

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:46:15 -0600, Roscoe Pendoscoe
<MrShade@Dont_Send_I_Wont_See_it.com> wrote:


>>>>>>>Finally now I get the new fiber in and connected and I get no activity
>>>>>>>and no connection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Any help here now would be appreciated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cat 5 from a switch 100' away to the media convertor at one end, and a
>>>>>>>switch immediately right after the convertor at the other end.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>ran my tester on the section from the switch 100' away and shows GOOD.
>>>>
>>>>That's probably just a continuity test. If the pairings aren't being
>>>>honored, the cable can look good (i.e. continuous) but fail at
>>>>frequency. What's worse (and could be happening here) is that if the
>>>>cable isn't wired correctly, it can pass continuity testing, work with
>>>>_some_ combinations of equipment, and yet fail with other (more fussy)
>>>>equipment.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, just a continuity test
>>>
>>>>Are these professionally made cables?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I am a professional.........
>>
>>Well, here's a potential issue. Continuity is not enough. It is
>>vital that the pairings of the cable be maintained so that the two
>>sides of each differential signal be in the same twisted pair.
>>For historic reasons (ATT vs. the rest of the world +/-), there are
>>two associated standards, either one of which can be used.

I don't know if my other message went through earlier, I fell asleep
briefly with my finger on the keyboard. Long day actually and was not
able to get over to the office to try the new cables on the plant
side.

What I was typing when I fell asleep was that the old owner is an
engineer and programmer and certainly no dope but he had his own ideas
on how things should be done.

All the drops were hanging from the ceiling panels and when I tried to
tidy it up and put jacks in the wall, I found out that he had used
568G, The G being for George. When I talked to him about it, he said,
well as long as all of them were the same, what trouble or harm could
it cause?

Well, if anyone else but him did any work on it, and they did not know
of his special set-up, well you can't imagine the extra time it took
me to figure out what the problem was when I replaced the main switch
and patch-panel. It then turned into hours long job to cut off ll the
ends and rdo them properly to work.

One funny aside is that he "taught" one of his employees his technique
who used it exclusively when he built hisnew home and wired it. that
way throughout..

Anyhow, I have changed most connection to 568B.

All I have to do is change those four in the plant and we will know if
that is the problem.

>
>The magic words.........The old owner had his own ideas how 568B
>should be done.........with the pin side UP. I only discovered that by
>redoing all the inside the office connections.
>
>I think you have done me a great big favor.
>
>I didn't think that what was in the plant coming out of the switch
>would matter.
>
>YES YES!!
>
>It is 4:30 AM Thursday and I am off to my regular gig.
>
>Late today I will stop by and try.
>
>THANK YOU!
>>
>>This might help:
>>
>>http://www.linksys.com/faqs/default.asp?fqid=20
>>
>>A crossover cable, in essence, mixes the standards. (Hope that makes
>>sense.) If you Google
>>
>>568a 568b

I am very familiar with those standards, unlikeGeorge.

Thanks for jogging my brain again. I will get over there at the
earliest to try changing the existing cabling. I asked my Wife to
order manufactured cables of the properlength. I don't feel like
making them although she says they come in 568A only. Is this true?
Will be a problem won't it, since the rest is 568B correct?

I'll make them if need be.
>>
>>you'll turn up thousands of hits about the standards.
>>
>>A typical symptom of cabling which does not honor the pairings is
>>that it will work at 10Mbps but not at 100Mbps (because crosstalk
>>and noise are less of an issue at the slower speed). Thus, you
>>might be able to check whether that's the problem by temporarily
>>forcing (via software or the insertion of 10base-T hubs on each
>>end) the system to run at 10Mbps.
>>
>>This kind of thing is especially frustrating because some equipment
>>tolerates the associated problems much better than other equipment,
>>so that the precise configuration matters. Thus, if the copper/fiber
>>converters were less tolerant than your switches, you could generate
>>symptoms just like you're seeing.
>>
>>If you were not careful to pick either 568a or 568b and stick with
>>it, I can almost guarantee that's your problem, and that re-terminating
>>the cables according to the standard will make a difference. Usenet
>>is chock full of discussions about this issue. Typically the complaint
>>is "My network worked fine until I went from 10 Mbps to 100 Mbps" or
>>"As soon as my cable length exceeded 30 (+/-) feet, it stopped working."
>>
>>Another idea that occurs to me is to set up a very short fiber link
>>using a couple of PCs, your current drop cables, the wire-to-optical
>>converters, and a short length of fiber, and see whether you get
>>the connectivity that's now lacking.
>>
>>>
>>> No, I ran them and put ends on them. No small feat as this is a huge
>>> building with thirty foot ceilings. I wouldn't want to have to do it
>>> again. Comes out of the office where the server and switch reside,
>>> enters a warehouse. Requires the use of a lift.
>>>
>>
>>I doubt you'll have to re-run them, but you might have to redo the
>>terminations if the pairings are incorrect.
>>
>>>>>Actually have the network running fine with the extra CAT 5 I pulled
>>>>>along with the FIBER that was to be replacing COAX.. Put some ends on
>>>>>it and plugged into the switch and it works fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually a bit speedier than the old COAX.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> The 2 users on the far end report less connection problems with the
>>> CAT 5 but I still have a copper connection which I was trying to get
>>> away from.
>>
>>With a Cat5 connection you should have _no_ connection problems
>>attributable to the wiring up to 100 meters unless you are in a
>>severe environment, IMHO. I run gigabit over Cat5 here, and
>>it just works.
>>
>>>
>>>>>That would mean the fiber is not connecting....yes?
>>>>
>>>>That sounds right.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did pull both spools of fiber through and tried connecting both, so
>>> I am pretty well certain I do not have bad fiber run. Both couldn't be
>>> bad.
>>>
>>> I opted for factory installed ends on the fiber as I watched a video
>>> "HOW TO".......no thanks, plus the cost of tools for a one time deal.
>>> But, do they put the ends on these things in the proper manner?
>>>
>>> I guess they would have to, be some bad feedback if not.
>>>
>>>>>Have the MILAN 180C media convertor on each end. Moved a jumper that
>>>>>mentioned auto-sensing full or half-duplex which I changed with no
>>>>>luck.
>>>>
>>>>There are several kinds of auto-sensing. The one that's important
>>>>here is auto-sensing whether a crossover is needed. That's different
>>>
>>>>from FDX/HDX and speed negotiation.
>>>
>>>>>The SMC mini switches I believe mention that a crossover is not
>>>>>needed............who knows.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, I am an ELECTRICIAN with limited networking experience. I
>>>>>purchased 2 spools (100m) of fiber with pre-installed SC ends on them.
>>>>>One to use, one for a spare just in case.
>>>>>
>>>>>Since I am no expert here, does it matter what TYPE of fiber? "NEW EMC
>>>>>100M FIBER OPTIC SC TO SC FIBRE SPOOL EMC1046" 50/125
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm not a fiber expert, but I believe it does matter. The docs for the
>>>>fiber converters should say.
>>>
>>>
>>> When I researched this job and got info from a couple folks, I don't
>>> remember anything regarding the fiber.
>>>
>>> When they say single mode or dual mode, is that just a fancy way to
>>> say a TX/RX in one cable, i.e. 2 fibers together an A channel and a B
>>> channel so to speak?
>>
>>I thought it was more fundamental with that, having to do with the
>>wavelengths of light they're designed to pass, but I don't claim to
>>be an expert.
>>
>>>
>>> Single mode would be just one?
>>>
>>>>>>>Someone said I need a CROSSOVER CABLE from the switch to the
>>>>>>>convertor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It depends on the particular equipment. Some switches auto-sense.
>>>>>>Other equipment has some means for inserting the equivalent of a
>>>>>>crossover -- often that's called an "uplink" port. If your status
>>>>>>LEDs are off, and you're sure the equipment is good and powered up,
>>>>>>there's a pretty good chance that a crossover is what it wants.
>>>>>>Try it and see. You can couple a short crossover to the long cable,
>>>>>>and use a crossover directly on the other end -- if the LEDs suddenly
>>>>>>come on, Bob's your uncle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I will try Wednesday or Thursday with the crossover
>>>>>
>>>>>The manual says any port this switch will auto uplink though
>>>>>
>>>>>All lights are green, no activity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If the lights are green, the crossover is probably not needed.
>>>>However, it's a cheap thing to try, and I've seen (rarely) equipment
>>>>that purports to auto-detect everything and get all set up
>>>>automatically, but still only works when things are made explicit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Also, with the one switch 100' away on one end does that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>matter?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>no, you should be good to 100 meters, assuming you're using properly
>>>>>>installed Cat5 cable
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Should I install a switch there at the point it changes over?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>no, unless there are other facts warranting it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have been trying to get this job done for the better part of 2
>>>>>months. Off and on of course.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Good thing the fallback Cat5 works!
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah boy! I'd have a boatload of trouble.
>>>
>>> Did I mention my Wife works there?
>>>
>>> I.T. and Special Projects Manager. Already I am catching an earful of
>>> why & how come it's not done.
>>>
>>> The owners are cash poor and I purchased the materials and equipment
>>> on eBAY to save them some money and have not submitted a bill for any
>>> labor yet. I paid my apprentice to dig the hole and help pull the
>>> wire(s).
>>>
>>> Gets me more nervous by the day. If I don't get this thing to work
>>> I'll be out some cash I know because she'll insist I eat the entire
>>> thing.
>>>
>>> Yeesh!
>>>
>>> Anyway, thanks again!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Roscoe aka MrShade
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Roscoe aka MrShade
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Roscoe aka MrShade
>
>Regards,
>
>Roscoe aka MrShade

Regards,

Roscoe aka MrShade

Roscoe Pendoscoe wrote:
<snip>
>
> I am very familiar with those standards, unlikeGeorge.
>
> Thanks for jogging my brain again. I will get over there at the
> earliest to try changing the existing cabling. I asked my Wife to
> order manufactured cables of the properlength. I don't feel like
> making them although she says they come in 568A only. Is this true?
> Will be a problem won't it, since the rest is 568B correct?
>
<snip>

Actually, it should not be a problem, since they're congruent (same
but for wire color, and the electrons don't know what color the wires
are). The important thing is the _pairings_, and both standards are
the same in that regard.


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.