Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations derfloh on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Is it ok to use Cat 5 cables in Cat6 sockets?? 2
- Thread starter dringer
- Start date
DToolsDesigner
Instructor
What would be the point?
You would only have a Cat 5 system and you would have spent more money on the jacks than a cat 5 system is worth.
The overall system is rated at the performance level of the weakest link, which in the case you describe is Cat 5.
Put another way, sure it's ok, but you gain nothing by doing that.
Richard S. Anderson, RCDD
You would only have a Cat 5 system and you would have spent more money on the jacks than a cat 5 system is worth.
The overall system is rated at the performance level of the weakest link, which in the case you describe is Cat 5.
Put another way, sure it's ok, but you gain nothing by doing that.
Richard S. Anderson, RCDD
jimbopalmer
Programmer
If you are asking "Can I use existing patch cables between a Cat 6 infrastructure in the building and my existing PCs?" then Yes, the existing patches only need to be swapped out as you get faster NICs, but I would use cat 6 in the patch panel from day one. (or have a VERY obvious color coding scheme, hot pink for cat 6!)
If you are asking "can I run cat5 wire in the walls and punch them down to cat 6 plugs" the answer is yes but you gain nothing over buying cat 5 plugs and you will have to redo ALL the labor when you need cat 6 features. Terrible waste.
I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.
If you are asking "can I run cat5 wire in the walls and punch them down to cat 6 plugs" the answer is yes but you gain nothing over buying cat 5 plugs and you will have to redo ALL the labor when you need cat 6 features. Terrible waste.
I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.
I suspect that punching down a cat 5 cable to a cat 6 jack might give less than cat 5 performance.
using a cat 5 patch cord with cat 6 cable will limit it to cat 5 but like jimbopalmer says its really not tha big a deal just pick up cat 6 patch cords when you get around to it
using a cat 5 patch cord with cat 6 cable will limit it to cat 5 but like jimbopalmer says its really not tha big a deal just pick up cat 6 patch cords when you get around to it
Cat5 and Cat6 simply refer to the number of twists in the wire. These twist help keep the signal clean. It is possible to run faster than the wire is speced for. I have been able to run tests of 350mb+ over regular CAT-5 wiring. This was with somewhat realistic traffic patterns, and not too off from what you would get with Cat-6.
I say try it. run some tests, see how it works. Replacing cable is very expensive sometimes, and you may be suprised at how well your old Cat-5 wiring performs.
What exactly do you mean by CAT-6 sockets anyways? If you mean the plug, the actually jack, they are IDENTICAL to CAT-5 or CAT-3 jacks even, the CAT rating again deals with the number of twists per inch in the wire, not any special wiring.
I say try it. run some tests, see how it works. Replacing cable is very expensive sometimes, and you may be suprised at how well your old Cat-5 wiring performs.
What exactly do you mean by CAT-6 sockets anyways? If you mean the plug, the actually jack, they are IDENTICAL to CAT-5 or CAT-3 jacks even, the CAT rating again deals with the number of twists per inch in the wire, not any special wiring.
DToolsDesigner
Instructor
gcunning
Your not correct in your summation of the difference between cat 5 and cat 6.
Having been an Applications Engineer for a major manufacturer of Voice and Data products, there is more to it than just twists. Especially in the jacks. The speeds at which cat 6 transmits makes NEXT a very tricky thing to suppress for quality transmission.
I am curious how you ran tests for 350 mb+, do you mean MHz? How did you test for real world?
Just curiosity on my part.
How would you run faster than cat 6 or cat 5e is spec'd for?
Richard S. Anderson, RCDD
Your not correct in your summation of the difference between cat 5 and cat 6.
Having been an Applications Engineer for a major manufacturer of Voice and Data products, there is more to it than just twists. Especially in the jacks. The speeds at which cat 6 transmits makes NEXT a very tricky thing to suppress for quality transmission.
I am curious how you ran tests for 350 mb+, do you mean MHz? How did you test for real world?
Just curiosity on my part.
How would you run faster than cat 6 or cat 5e is spec'd for?
Richard S. Anderson, RCDD
groundstart
Vendor
i never heard or saw a cat 5 cable spec'ing out at 350mhz. I sure would like to hear more about this one...
cablemeister
Technical User
There are numerous Cat 5e cables on the market that claim 350 MHz or higher. i.e. CatLink 350 from Genesis, Mohawk 400, just to name 2.
This doesn't mean you can run at that bandwidth, it simply means they may perform slightly better at the 100 MHz for Cat 5e than a cable that is only rated at 100 MHz.
I would like to know how someone can test real world at either 350 MBs or 350 MHz.
This doesn't mean you can run at that bandwidth, it simply means they may perform slightly better at the 100 MHz for Cat 5e than a cable that is only rated at 100 MHz.
I would like to know how someone can test real world at either 350 MBs or 350 MHz.
-
1
- #9
daronwilson
Vendor
Not sure where this stuff comes from, but I take issue with a bit of this one:
Cat5 and Cat6 simply refer to the number of twists in the wire.
Uh...nope. I'm not sure I need to copy and paste the parameters, but for one they aren't even the same wire gage. The category does NOT refer to the number of twists, it refers to a documented criteria developed by a standards body.
I have been able to run tests of 350mb+ over regular CAT-5 wiring.
Yeah...well I'd like to watch that one. Which 350mb NIC were you using? I've never seen one. Perhaps you are confusing megabits and megahertz, two very different measurements in our business.
What exactly do you mean by CAT-6 sockets anyways? If you mean the plug, the actually jack, they are IDENTICAL to CAT-5 or CAT-3 jacks even, the CAT rating again deals with the number of twists per inch in the wire, not any special wiring.
Sorry, but you are completely incorrect here as well. If you have ever examined Cat3,5 or 6 components there are many times very visable differences. More importantly, they are NOT at all identical.
It is only my opinion, based on my experience and education...I am always willing to learn, educate me!
Daron J. Wilson, RCDD
daron.wilson@lhmorris.com
Cat5 and Cat6 simply refer to the number of twists in the wire.
Uh...nope. I'm not sure I need to copy and paste the parameters, but for one they aren't even the same wire gage. The category does NOT refer to the number of twists, it refers to a documented criteria developed by a standards body.
I have been able to run tests of 350mb+ over regular CAT-5 wiring.
Yeah...well I'd like to watch that one. Which 350mb NIC were you using? I've never seen one. Perhaps you are confusing megabits and megahertz, two very different measurements in our business.
What exactly do you mean by CAT-6 sockets anyways? If you mean the plug, the actually jack, they are IDENTICAL to CAT-5 or CAT-3 jacks even, the CAT rating again deals with the number of twists per inch in the wire, not any special wiring.
Sorry, but you are completely incorrect here as well. If you have ever examined Cat3,5 or 6 components there are many times very visable differences. More importantly, they are NOT at all identical.
It is only my opinion, based on my experience and education...I am always willing to learn, educate me!
Daron J. Wilson, RCDD
daron.wilson@lhmorris.com
Can anyone give better information than "they are different"?
The physical connection jacks appear to be identical to me regardless of the rated speed. Is there something I am missing? I have seen very slightly differnt gauge from manufacturer to manufacturer, but I have not seen any consistant difference in gauge from one CAT to the next.
And please reffer to a manufacturers standards, just because there is a public standard, doesn't mean the producers follow it well. The number of twist are the only real world differnce I have been able to observe.
Gigabit NIC cards are what we used, we set up a machines to generate artifical traffic. Running over our buildings current wiring (which should be Cat5 but may be Cat5e) we were able to run between 250-350megabits of traffic. 350mb was the peak, but this is pretty good increase in speed for very little cost.
Granted our tests may not have qualified as real world.
I only witnessed and did not set up our test to see how our internal wiring performed at Gigabit levels, if you all are curious I will check with the gentleman who did set it all up, he is out sick today but should be back tomorrow. Perhaps my recollection was inaccurate, but if not I recall that we determined that Gigabit cards could run very well over our existing network cabling. We made the decsion to stick with a faster 100+ network, than spend the money to go to Gigabit throughout. The reasoning being, we could limp by on this for now (few users need better than a 10mb connection still) and upgrade the wiring when we needed or when a newer standard came out (fiber or CAT-7 may be a better option a year or so down the road.)
The physical connection jacks appear to be identical to me regardless of the rated speed. Is there something I am missing? I have seen very slightly differnt gauge from manufacturer to manufacturer, but I have not seen any consistant difference in gauge from one CAT to the next.
And please reffer to a manufacturers standards, just because there is a public standard, doesn't mean the producers follow it well. The number of twist are the only real world differnce I have been able to observe.
Gigabit NIC cards are what we used, we set up a machines to generate artifical traffic. Running over our buildings current wiring (which should be Cat5 but may be Cat5e) we were able to run between 250-350megabits of traffic. 350mb was the peak, but this is pretty good increase in speed for very little cost.
Granted our tests may not have qualified as real world.
I only witnessed and did not set up our test to see how our internal wiring performed at Gigabit levels, if you all are curious I will check with the gentleman who did set it all up, he is out sick today but should be back tomorrow. Perhaps my recollection was inaccurate, but if not I recall that we determined that Gigabit cards could run very well over our existing network cabling. We made the decsion to stick with a faster 100+ network, than spend the money to go to Gigabit throughout. The reasoning being, we could limp by on this for now (few users need better than a 10mb connection still) and upgrade the wiring when we needed or when a newer standard came out (fiber or CAT-7 may be a better option a year or so down the road.)
-
1
- #11
One googled result on a comparison is:
There would appear to be a fair difference in spec.
There would appear to be a fair difference in spec.
mikeydidit
IS-IT--Management
The only gauge change that I am aware of is in Cat 6. It has been increased to a gauge size of 23 instead of the normal 24 gauge with Cat5 and 5E. The terminations have also been changed from 1/2" from the jacket to 3/8" from the jacket on the jacks and patch panels.
Mikey
Mikey
daronwilson
Vendor
Can anyone give better information than "they are different"?
The reason I didn't is because it is a well published standard, there seems little reason to take the who knows how many pages of technical specs and post them here, but I'll look at work and see if I can cut and paste all those specs for you.
The physical connection jacks appear to be identical to me regardless of the rated speed. Is there something I am missing?
Yes there is. How each manufacture makes their product meet the standard is up to them. At first, most of them seemed to be doing it by physically moving the two little fingers inside the jack for pins 3 and 6 so that the whole row was not in a line. There have been many other methods involving circuit board changes and design as well. At any rate, I don't have the time to go look up each manufacturer for you and see what is different with theirs. If you put cat5 jacks on cat6 wire and expect it to all test out at Cat6, I am pretty sure you will be unsuccessfull.
I have seen very slightly differnt gauge from manufacturer to manufacturer, but I have not seen any consistant difference in gauge from one CAT to the next.
The only change I am aware of is between 5/5e and 6, and that was a larger gage wire as discussed above. You asked for some specific changes, I gave you one to explain that there is more differnece in the two than the twists in the pairs.
Gigabit NIC cards are what we used, we set up a machines to generate artifical traffic.
Great. You took a 1000mbs connection designed to run on Cat5e and actually made it run at 1/3 of it's capacity, 350mbs. The wire is not specified for any megabit per second rating. It is only specified to have a specific bandwidth. For Cat5e that channel bandwidth was 100 Mhz (not Mbs), and manufacturers made cable that had MORE bandwidth than was required (200, 250, 350, 400 Mhz). Seems like 1000bt ethernet gets there by pumping 250mbs of data down each of four pairs. So, even if you had 656Mhz rated cable, you are only going to use 250mbs on each pair to get there with the connection you described.
I'll look for more data for you, but I'm not going to look up manufacturer's 'standards' because they don't mean squat in the field. They are mostly hype to sell product. If there is no standard for 10gbs on copper, then how can someone sell you wire that will work on it? We went through this with Cat6, everyone had a 'cat6 product' that would meet or exceed the 'proposed' cat6 standard. Almost everyone had to re-engineer and re-design when the standard finally came out.
Good Luck!
It is only my opinion, based on my experience and education...I am always willing to learn, educate me!
Daron J. Wilson, RCDD
daron.wilson@lhmorris.com
The reason I didn't is because it is a well published standard, there seems little reason to take the who knows how many pages of technical specs and post them here, but I'll look at work and see if I can cut and paste all those specs for you.
The physical connection jacks appear to be identical to me regardless of the rated speed. Is there something I am missing?
Yes there is. How each manufacture makes their product meet the standard is up to them. At first, most of them seemed to be doing it by physically moving the two little fingers inside the jack for pins 3 and 6 so that the whole row was not in a line. There have been many other methods involving circuit board changes and design as well. At any rate, I don't have the time to go look up each manufacturer for you and see what is different with theirs. If you put cat5 jacks on cat6 wire and expect it to all test out at Cat6, I am pretty sure you will be unsuccessfull.
I have seen very slightly differnt gauge from manufacturer to manufacturer, but I have not seen any consistant difference in gauge from one CAT to the next.
The only change I am aware of is between 5/5e and 6, and that was a larger gage wire as discussed above. You asked for some specific changes, I gave you one to explain that there is more differnece in the two than the twists in the pairs.
Gigabit NIC cards are what we used, we set up a machines to generate artifical traffic.
Great. You took a 1000mbs connection designed to run on Cat5e and actually made it run at 1/3 of it's capacity, 350mbs. The wire is not specified for any megabit per second rating. It is only specified to have a specific bandwidth. For Cat5e that channel bandwidth was 100 Mhz (not Mbs), and manufacturers made cable that had MORE bandwidth than was required (200, 250, 350, 400 Mhz). Seems like 1000bt ethernet gets there by pumping 250mbs of data down each of four pairs. So, even if you had 656Mhz rated cable, you are only going to use 250mbs on each pair to get there with the connection you described.
I'll look for more data for you, but I'm not going to look up manufacturer's 'standards' because they don't mean squat in the field. They are mostly hype to sell product. If there is no standard for 10gbs on copper, then how can someone sell you wire that will work on it? We went through this with Cat6, everyone had a 'cat6 product' that would meet or exceed the 'proposed' cat6 standard. Almost everyone had to re-engineer and re-design when the standard finally came out.
Good Luck!
It is only my opinion, based on my experience and education...I am always willing to learn, educate me!
Daron J. Wilson, RCDD
daron.wilson@lhmorris.com
Thank you both, I stand humbly corrected. I was not aware that manufactureres had upped the gauge for CAT 6.
I would still contend that 250mbs is better than 100.
Take into consideration the gig cards were free for us, so being able to up our speed for free was nice.
My point about standards is if no one is following them they dont mean anything, I just wanted real world examples, not idealistic ones. The gauge and jacket terminators stated above appear to be real physical differences.
However, I don't see how they can move pin placemnt and still have the jacks physically compatible. All the Gig connectors I have seen, appear to be pinned the same way as CAt-5, and plugs appear to work interchangeably.
They way I looked at this test, we were pushing the line above spec, overclocking essentially. No one thought you could get the performance of a 450mhz PII from a 300mhz Celeron, but wow! it actually worked. From what I saw, it seemed possible to overclock the wire beyond specs There are CRC checks built into TCP/IP so errors aren't really an issue as long as the don't outweigh the speed increase.
I agree its not on par with Gig, but what is the actually throughput on Gig?, you won't get 1000mbs, I'd gues that 600-700mbs would be the highest you would see. and 600 is only double 300. It seemed to be a viable alternative to me, however it was just a test. Perhaps we will be able to bridge our networks "offically" and see how it works. I will have to upgrade our switch network to do this though, we have gig NICs for PC's, but most of our equipment caps out at 100mbs.
Best of all if works, its much cheaper than running new wire in a building.
I would still contend that 250mbs is better than 100.
Take into consideration the gig cards were free for us, so being able to up our speed for free was nice.
My point about standards is if no one is following them they dont mean anything, I just wanted real world examples, not idealistic ones. The gauge and jacket terminators stated above appear to be real physical differences.
However, I don't see how they can move pin placemnt and still have the jacks physically compatible. All the Gig connectors I have seen, appear to be pinned the same way as CAt-5, and plugs appear to work interchangeably.
They way I looked at this test, we were pushing the line above spec, overclocking essentially. No one thought you could get the performance of a 450mhz PII from a 300mhz Celeron, but wow! it actually worked. From what I saw, it seemed possible to overclock the wire beyond specs There are CRC checks built into TCP/IP so errors aren't really an issue as long as the don't outweigh the speed increase.
I agree its not on par with Gig, but what is the actually throughput on Gig?, you won't get 1000mbs, I'd gues that 600-700mbs would be the highest you would see. and 600 is only double 300. It seemed to be a viable alternative to me, however it was just a test. Perhaps we will be able to bridge our networks "offically" and see how it works. I will have to upgrade our switch network to do this though, we have gig NICs for PC's, but most of our equipment caps out at 100mbs.
Best of all if works, its much cheaper than running new wire in a building.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question