RJ45 doubler?

I am trying to avoid using yet another ethernet hub. I am sure that I
have seen a RJ45 doubler connector somewhere (just like a telephone one
but slightly bigger) but I can't find one anywhere now. Anyone got any
ideas?

Thanks

"Trek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> I am trying to avoid using yet another ethernet hub. I am sure that I
> have seen a RJ45 doubler connector somewhere (just like a telephone one
> but slightly bigger) but I can't find one anywhere now. Anyone got any
> ideas?
>
> Thanks
>

Yes, they are available, but you'll still need more ethernet ports on your
switch / hub. (and a doubler each end of the cat5)

You cannot just duplicate one end of a cat 5 cable without doing the same at
the hub end.

Tim..

Tim.. wrote:
> "Trek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>> I am trying to avoid using yet another ethernet hub. I am sure that I
>> have seen a RJ45 doubler connector somewhere (just like a telephone one
>> but slightly bigger) but I can't find one anywhere now. Anyone got any
>> ideas?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
> Yes, they are available, but you'll still need more ethernet ports on your
> switch / hub. (and a doubler each end of the cat5)
>
> You cannot just duplicate one end of a cat 5 cable without doing the same at
> the hub end.
>
> Tim..
>
>
Now will he get a better answer by reposting the same query 1/2 hour
later in a different group. Some things just are :-(

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)

Mike Scott wrote:
> Tim.. wrote:
>
>> "Trek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>>
>>> I am trying to avoid using yet another ethernet hub. I am sure that I
>>> have seen a RJ45 doubler connector somewhere (just like a telephone one
>>> but slightly bigger) but I can't find one anywhere now. Anyone got any
>>> ideas?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
>> Yes, they are available, but you'll still need more ethernet ports on
>> your
>> switch / hub. (and a doubler each end of the cat5)
>>
>> You cannot just duplicate one end of a cat 5 cable without doing the
>> same at
>> the hub end.
>>
>> Tim..
>>
>>
> Now will he get a better answer by reposting the same query 1/2 hour
> later in a different group. Some things just are :-(
>
I think Mike is confused and Tim has answered what should have been asked!

Mike

A phone doubler just splits the analogue line into 2 sockets and sends
the same thing to two phones.
An RJ45 doubler (like a phone one) wouldn't work as only one PC can be
connected to a hub output at a time.

What I think Tim is getting at is that one can buy adaptors (one must be
put at each end of a cable) so that the normal 8wires in a CAT5 (of
which only 4 are normally used) can be split into 2 groups of 4wires to
enable two network connections to be made over the same cable
You will still need two outputs of a hub to feed these two.

I haven't got any experience of using this kit (does anyone else here?)
but they seem to sell OK.
They are not cheap however and a second length of CAT5 would be better
if it can be installed.

Mike

m wrote:
>
>
> Mike Scott wrote:
>> Tim.. wrote:
>>
>>> "Trek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>>>
>>>> I am trying to avoid using yet another ethernet hub. I am sure that I
>>>> have seen a RJ45 doubler connector somewhere (just like a telephone one
>>>> but slightly bigger) but I can't find one anywhere now. Anyone got any
>>>> ideas?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, they are available, but you'll still need more ethernet ports on
>>> your
>>> switch / hub. (and a doubler each end of the cat5)
>>>
>>> You cannot just duplicate one end of a cat 5 cable without doing the
>>> same at
>>> the hub end.
>>>
>>> Tim..
>>>
>>>
>> Now will he get a better answer by reposting the same query 1/2 hour

Should have been "Nor will he ...". But I don't think it changes the
sense too much.

>> later in a different group. Some things just are :-(
>>
> I think Mike is confused and Tim has answered what should have been asked!
>
> Mike

No, I am not confused.

Trek posted the same question in 2 groups a half-hour apart. I posted
an accurate answer (substantially the same as Tim's) to his first
attempt in u.c.homebuilt.

I don't see the point in asking the same thing twice - the answer will
not change.

Anyway, he's got his answer, which could probably have been obtained
from google in the first place. Ironic really, given his posting host.

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, m <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>I haven't got any experience of using this kit (does anyone else here?)
>but they seem to sell OK.
They work just fine, only useful if the socket is fully wired and the
corresponding patch panel port is too and you will need extra ports at
the switch anyway.
>They are not cheap however and a second length of CAT5 would be better
>if it can be installed.
If you have access then it's better to run more cable, personally I
usually run a few extra in the conduit when I install a network to guard
against future failure and allow a little growth but not everyone does
this (does anyone here?)
>
>Mike
>

--
Clint Sharp

Thanks to all,

I think I will put in a hub. I was just trying to avoid a cable.

Regards
Clint Sharp wrote:
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, m <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
> >I haven't got any experience of using this kit (does anyone else here?)
> >but they seem to sell OK.
> They work just fine, only useful if the socket is fully wired and the
> corresponding patch panel port is too and you will need extra ports at
> the switch anyway.
> >They are not cheap however and a second length of CAT5 would be better
> >if it can be installed.
> If you have access then it's better to run more cable, personally I
> usually run a few extra in the conduit when I install a network to guard
> against future failure and allow a little growth but not everyone does
> this (does anyone here?)
> >
> >Mike
> >
>
> --
> Clint Sharp

In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...


> I think I will put in a hub. I was just trying to avoid a cable.

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html will also be something
useful for you.

> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html will also be something
> useful for you.


????????????????????????????