I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too. So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's? Mike
It's not all about density. You *Must* have positive retention and alignment. None of the USB nor firewire standards provide for positive retention. eSATA does sort of in some variants but the connectors for USB are especially delicate and easy to break off and destroy. There's the size of the Cat5/5e/6 cable to be considered too. Then you must consider that the standard must allow for local termination, the RJ45 (And it's relatives) are pretty good at this. Fast, reliable, repeatable termination with a single simple tool that requires only a little bit of mechanical input from the user of the tool. On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
-- "Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its possessors into trouble of all kinds." -- Samuel Butler
MRJ21 also helps density in some scenarios (like line card and patch panel density), although ultimately you need to go back to RJ45 at some point. -Vinny -----Original Message----- From: Michael Loftis [mailto:mloftis@wgops.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:29 PM To: Michael Thomas Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? It's not all about density. You *Must* have positive retention and alignment. None of the USB nor firewire standards provide for positive retention. eSATA does sort of in some variants but the connectors for USB are especially delicate and easy to break off and destroy. There's the size of the Cat5/5e/6 cable to be considered too. Then you must consider that the standard must allow for local termination, the RJ45 (And it's relatives) are pretty good at this. Fast, reliable, repeatable termination with a single simple tool that requires only a little bit of mechanical input from the user of the tool. On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
-- "Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its possessors into trouble of all kinds." -- Samuel Butler
If you've ever dealt with connections like micro-usb on a day-in-day out plugging and unplugging at not quite head on connections, you know how bad this can be on a hardwired connection. With very few exceptions, its very difficult to have an rj45 go in any way but the way its designed to (well you can, but you have to try reeeeeeeally hard). Add onto it that any replacement would be caught in enough intellectual property rights junk to price it into oblivion and would either require tons of adapters to make it work with legacy hardware (defeat the purpose), or would require replacing all of that legacy hardware entirely. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Loftis [mailto:mloftis@wgops.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:29 PM To: Michael Thomas Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? It's not all about density. You *Must* have positive retention and alignment. None of the USB nor firewire standards provide for positive retention. eSATA does sort of in some variants but the connectors for USB are especially delicate and easy to break off and destroy. There's the size of the Cat5/5e/6 cable to be considered too. Then you must consider that the standard must allow for local termination, the RJ45 (And it's relatives) are pretty good at this. Fast, reliable, repeatable termination with a single simple tool that requires only a little bit of mechanical input from the user of the tool. On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
-- "Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its possessors into trouble of all kinds." -- Samuel Butler
There is also the factor that cat5 is the principle desktop to network connection. That being the case, there's very strong motivation for ensuring that construction of that cable can be done very easily by barely trained folks. Otherwise, laying out an office or cube farm becomes considerably more difficult and expensive. RJ45 is and always has been a very easy termination as long as you can tell one color from another. How many people here have gotten good enough that they can cut a cable and pop connectors on each end in under 3 minutes? How many have gotten good enough that the failure rate for *hand made* cables is sub 1:1000? Show me another connector type where that will be true. Really, it will remain that way until the bandwidth needs from the desktop begin to push the GE threshold. Until then, why bother changing anything? When that does happen, it'll pretty well deal with itself. -Wayne On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:28:52AM -0800, Michael Loftis wrote:
It's not all about density. You *Must* have positive retention and alignment. None of the USB nor firewire standards provide for positive retention. eSATA does sort of in some variants but the connectors for USB are especially delicate and easy to break off and destroy. There's the size of the Cat5/5e/6 cable to be considered too.
Then you must consider that the standard must allow for local termination, the RJ45 (And it's relatives) are pretty good at this. Fast, reliable, repeatable termination with a single simple tool that requires only a little bit of mechanical input from the user of the tool.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
--
"Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its possessors into trouble of all kinds." -- Samuel Butler
--- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
On 12/20/2012 10:41 AM, Wayne E Bouchard wrote:
How many people here have gotten good enough that they can cut a cable and pop connectors on each end in under 3 minutes? How many have gotten good enough that the failure rate for *hand made* cables is sub 1:1000? Show me another connector type where that will be true.
Really, it will remain that way until the bandwidth needs from the desktop begin to push the GE threshold. Until then, why bother changing anything? When that does happen, it'll pretty well deal with itself.
I fully agree. I think the ethernet connector is pretty much the best and most useful one out there. Anything can be improved, however both from an admin and a user's perspective I can't find anything that works better, easier and is as sturdy. Regards, Jeroen -- Earthquake Magnitude: 4.8 Date: Thursday, December 20, 2012 13:38:05 UTC Location: Kepulauan Babar, Indonesia Latitude: -7.1032; Longitude: 129.2383 Depth: 162.10 km
On 12/20/12, Wayne E Bouchard <web@typo.org> wrote:
Really, it will remain that way until the bandwidth needs from the desktop begin to push the GE threshold. Until then, why bother changing anything? When that does happen, it'll pretty well deal with itself.
At which point the 8P8C connectors on desktops and laptops changes from RJ45 to SFP+ cage with LC connector, or direct-attach SFP+ between laptop and "active" fabric extender in the nearby wall jack; fed by fiber, with 10G-SR optical... Because the copper spec for >1gig was 10GBase-CX4; much heavier than Cat5. And there won't be much tolerance for the copper 15 meter distance limit in any case.
-Wayne -- -JH
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
At which point the 8P8C connectors on desktops and laptops changes from RJ45 to SFP+ cage with LC connector, or direct-attach SFP+ between laptop and "active" fabric extender in the nearby wall jack; fed by fiber, with 10G-SR optical...
Don't bet on fiber to the desktop making any inroads before Amp's patents on their Lightcrimp Plus system expire. They're the only ones to get close to making field termination of fiber a casual task with a low barrier to entry and they're dead set on making the Iomega mistake. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
On 12/20/2012 10:28 AM, Michael Loftis wrote:
It's not all about density. You *Must* have positive retention and alignment. None of the USB nor firewire standards provide for positive retention. eSATA does sort of in some variants but the connectors for USB are especially delicate and easy to break off and destroy. There's the size of the Cat5/5e/6 cable to be considered too.
Then you must consider that the standard must allow for local termination, the RJ45 (And it's relatives) are pretty good at this. Fast, reliable, repeatable termination with a single simple tool that requires only a little bit of mechanical input from the user of the tool.
If you look at the Raspberry Pi though, it takes a substantial piece of real estate though. Not everything needs to be industrial strength connectors as witnessed by USB and HDMI -- if they fail I'm just as unhappy as if ethernet fails. Surely we want keep shrinking these cute little purpose built controller-like things and not *have* to rely on wireless as the only other space-saving means? Mike
Do note that the 8P8C on the Raspberry Pi has integrated magnetics that you can't see without an x-ray imager. The space is not as wasted as some might think. Nothing stops a mfr from using whatever they want and providing a dongle, but now they need board space for the transformers.
On 2012-12-20 12:20, Michael Thomas wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
The primary reason that pops to mind is backwards compatibility... Ubiquitous availablity of the parts for RJ45 connectors (end connectors, wall plates, panels, etc.) also means that it is more economical to continue using the well established connector. A new connector would drive up costs initially, whereas continuing to use RJ45 is cheap and already works. Jay
They haven't changed for you: http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzJPvwOhWoL2afxBdl7a-LmYYWwzgQNpiHS... Cheers, Joshua On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:29 AM, <tech-lists@packet-labs.net<mailto:tech-lists@packet-labs.net>> wrote: On 2012-12-20 12:20, Michael Thomas wrote: I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too. So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's? Mike The primary reason that pops to mind is backwards compatibility... Ubiquitous availablity of the parts for RJ45 connectors (end connectors, wall plates, panels, etc.) also means that it is more economical to continue using the well established connector. A new connector would drive up costs initially, whereas continuing to use RJ45 is cheap and already works. Jay
Is that the infamous Google Pluto switch? On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Joshua Goldbard <j@2600hz.com> wrote:
They haven't changed for you: http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzJPvwOhWoL2afxBdl7a-LmYYWwzgQNpiHS...
Cheers, Joshua
-- ~Em
On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years.
Actually, I was just throwing some away yesterday, and it struck me how much things _had_ changed. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps214/products_tech_note09186... -Bill
I'm going to go by the "Necessity is the mother of invention" theory here and say that it's basically because the need for a subcompact ethernet connector hasn't shown up in masse yet. It was probably just adopted because it's inexpensive, easy to install using tools already out there in the telecom world, and it works well enough at the required feedline impedance of 100 ohms. That being said, any connector that works for balanced line signalling with a feedline impedance of 100 ohms and a favorable frequency response up to 100mc (100base-T / cat5) or 250mc (1000baseT / cat6) should work just fine. For obvious reasons, standardization of the submini ethernet connector should be present industrywide, so you don't have to start carrying around adapters. Boy would I ever love an ethernet connector that works like Apple's MagSafe... or at least just kinda friction fits like USB... THOSE TABS... On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
-- -- Tom Morris, KG4CYX Mad Scientist For Hire Chairman, South Florida Tropical Hamboree / Miami Hamfest Engineer, WRGP Radiate FM, Florida International University 786-228-7087 151.820 Megacycles
Once upon a time, Tom Morris <blueneon@gmail.com> said:
Boy would I ever love an ethernet connector that works like Apple's MagSafe... or at least just kinda friction fits like USB... THOSE TABS...
Please, NO! Connectors without a positive locking mechanism should just die (and that includes IEC power connectors). -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large
Love those friction fit connectors till they loosen and fall out.... Ralph Brandt -----Original Message----- From: Tom Morris [mailto:blueneon@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:34 PM To: Michael Thomas Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? I'm going to go by the "Necessity is the mother of invention" theory here and say that it's basically because the need for a subcompact ethernet connector hasn't shown up in masse yet. It was probably just adopted because it's inexpensive, easy to install using tools already out there in the telecom world, and it works well enough at the required feedline impedance of 100 ohms. That being said, any connector that works for balanced line signalling with a feedline impedance of 100 ohms and a favorable frequency response up to 100mc (100base-T / cat5) or 250mc (1000baseT / cat6) should work just fine. For obvious reasons, standardization of the submini ethernet connector should be present industrywide, so you don't have to start carrying around adapters. Boy would I ever love an ethernet connector that works like Apple's MagSafe... or at least just kinda friction fits like USB... THOSE TABS... On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote: the
ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
-- -- Tom Morris, KG4CYX Mad Scientist For Hire Chairman, South Florida Tropical Hamboree / Miami Hamfest Engineer, WRGP Radiate FM, Florida International University 786-228-7087 151.820 Megacycles
Tom Morris <blueneon@gmail.com> wrote:
Boy would I ever love an ethernet connector that works like Apple's MagSafe...
I guess a magsafe ethernet connector would have too much noise (owing to poor quality connection) to provide decently high bandwidth. This thread reminds me of http://fanf.livejournal.com/96172.html Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good, occasionally poor at first.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
I guess a magsafe ethernet connector would have too much noise (owing to poor quality connection) to provide decently high bandwidth.
I don't see why a magsafe connection would be any more or less noisy than an rj45. They both follow the same principle: spring tension to hold the contacts together. The main issues with magsafe are: 1. You can't have very many pins before the power of the magnet necessary to overcome the spring tension approaches the ridiculous. 2. Past about two magsafe connections to a machine, cable tangle will cause them to frequently pull loose. 3. RJ45 implements spring tension the simple and cheap way. Magsafe does it the complicated and expensive way. You can pretty much forget about field termination. Want some entertainment? Read this article on repairing a magsafe connector: http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Repairing+MagSafe+Connector/1753/1 Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
the 8p8c connector is durable. The connector predates twisted pair ethernet by a decade or more. you could also ask about 1/4" TRS which is still in use albiet not in phone systems for about 100 years longer. On 12/20/12 10:20 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
On 20 December 2012 18:20, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote
ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years.
15-pin D-type AUI connectors with slide latches? BNC for thinwire? I do agree though, something more like mini-USB would be more appropriate for home Ethernet use. Aled
Please, no connectors that do not lock into place. Is plugging in the RJ-45 that much of a task? Most portable devices are going wireless in any case so they are not an issue. The RJ-45 has worked OK for me. The AUI connectors have a special place in networking hell. What an incredibly horrible mechanical design they were? The flip side of the question is why you think the RJ-45 should change. You could argue that you don't usually need all eight wires but every time we tried that argument someone came up with a compelling reason to use more wires. I like that it is very standard. In the fiber world it is a continuous issue of hybrid patch cords dealing with ST,SC,LC and all the other variants out there. It would be a huge nightmare if the same thing happened with copper Ethernet. I am also not a huge fan of the USB connector because I have seen a lot of those break and there is no positive retention. Magnetic is cute but has no place in a datacenter and even with desktops I can picture a lot of support calls because someone bumps a wire that knocks the mag connector out of place. I really hate dongles of all types but I guess you don't really have a choice with devices so physically thin that you can't get the jack in there. I think I will keep the RJ for now. Steven Naslund -----Original Message----- From: Aled Morris [mailto:aledm@qix.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:38 PM To: Michael Thomas Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? On 20 December 2012 18:20, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote
ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years.
15-pin D-type AUI connectors with slide latches? BNC for thinwire? I do agree though, something more like mini-USB would be more appropriate for home Ethernet use. Aled
The only thing I would change about RJ-45 is a longer tab (but make it optional) for when you care more about ease of removal than cable tangles. Polycom phones are hell to try and unplug the RJ-45, for example. -----Original Message----- From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:SNaslund@medline.com] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:43 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? Please, no connectors that do not lock into place. Is plugging in the RJ-45 that much of a task? Most portable devices are going wireless in any case so they are not an issue. The RJ-45 has worked OK for me. The AUI connectors have a special place in networking hell. What an incredibly horrible mechanical design they were? The flip side of the question is why you think the RJ-45 should change. You could argue that you don't usually need all eight wires but every time we tried that argument someone came up with a compelling reason to use more wires. I like that it is very standard. In the fiber world it is a continuous issue of hybrid patch cords dealing with ST,SC,LC and all the other variants out there. It would be a huge nightmare if the same thing happened with copper Ethernet. I am also not a huge fan of the USB connector because I have seen a lot of those break and there is no positive retention. Magnetic is cute but has no place in a datacenter and even with desktops I can picture a lot of support calls because someone bumps a wire that knocks the mag connector out of place. I really hate dongles of all types but I guess you don't really have a choice with devices so physically thin that you can't get the jack in there. I think I will keep the RJ for now. Steven Naslund -----Original Message----- From: Aled Morris [mailto:aledm@qix.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:38 PM To: Michael Thomas Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? On 20 December 2012 18:20, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote
ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years.
15-pin D-type AUI connectors with slide latches? BNC for thinwire? I do agree though, something more like mini-USB would be more appropriate for home Ethernet use. Aled
I have noticed that too. However it is not the RJ-45 connector's fault. It is the morons that insist on recessing connectors in places where you can't get your finger on the tab. I like the patch cords that have the kind of loop/spring thing for a tab that does not catch on everything and that way you don't need the boot over the tab. Another pet peeve of mine is connector boots that harden up over time so it is nearly impossible to flex the tab to remove the cable. Also, how about the 48 port 6500 blades and trying to remove the cables near the blade extraction tabs. Grrrr. Steven Naslund -----Original Message----- From: Eric Wieling [mailto:EWieling@nyigc.com] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:30 AM To: Naslund, Steve; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? The only thing I would change about RJ-45 is a longer tab (but make it optional) for when you care more about ease of removal than cable tangles. Polycom phones are hell to try and unplug the RJ-45, for example. -----Original Message----- From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:SNaslund@medline.com] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:43 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? Please, no connectors that do not lock into place. Is plugging in the RJ-45 that much of a task? Most portable devices are going wireless in any case so they are not an issue. The RJ-45 has worked OK for me. The AUI connectors have a special place in networking hell. What an incredibly horrible mechanical design they were? The flip side of the question is why you think the RJ-45 should change. You could argue that you don't usually need all eight wires but every time we tried that argument someone came up with a compelling reason to use more wires. I like that it is very standard. In the fiber world it is a continuous issue of hybrid patch cords dealing with ST,SC,LC and all the other variants out there. It would be a huge nightmare if the same thing happened with copper Ethernet. I am also not a huge fan of the USB connector because I have seen a lot of those break and there is no positive retention. Magnetic is cute but has no place in a datacenter and even with desktops I can picture a lot of support calls because someone bumps a wire that knocks the mag connector out of place. I really hate dongles of all types but I guess you don't really have a choice with devices so physically thin that you can't get the jack in there. I think I will keep the RJ for now. Steven Naslund -----Original Message----- From: Aled Morris [mailto:aledm@qix.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:38 PM To: Michael Thomas Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? On 20 December 2012 18:20, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote
ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years.
15-pin D-type AUI connectors with slide latches? BNC for thinwire? I do agree though, something more like mini-USB would be more appropriate for home Ethernet use. Aled
Some companies such as Apple have completely removed Ethernet ports from their Pro line laptops. Other vendors, such as ASUS, have thin laptops with collapsing Ethernet ports that tuck into the case. On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com>wrote:
I have noticed that too. However it is not the RJ-45 connector's fault. It is the morons that insist on recessing connectors in places where you can't get your finger on the tab. I like the patch cords that have the kind of loop/spring thing for a tab that does not catch on everything and that way you don't need the boot over the tab. Another pet peeve of mine is connector boots that harden up over time so it is nearly impossible to flex the tab to remove the cable. Also, how about the 48 port 6500 blades and trying to remove the cables near the blade extraction tabs. Grrrr.
Steven Naslund
-----Original Message----- From: Eric Wieling [mailto:EWieling@nyigc.com] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:30 AM To: Naslund, Steve; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: why haven't ethernet connectors changed?
The only thing I would change about RJ-45 is a longer tab (but make it optional) for when you care more about ease of removal than cable tangles. Polycom phones are hell to try and unplug the RJ-45, for example.
-----Original Message----- From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:SNaslund@medline.com] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:43 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: why haven't ethernet connectors changed?
Please, no connectors that do not lock into place. Is plugging in the RJ-45 that much of a task? Most portable devices are going wireless in any case so they are not an issue. The RJ-45 has worked OK for me. The AUI connectors have a special place in networking hell. What an incredibly horrible mechanical design they were? The flip side of the question is why you think the RJ-45 should change. You could argue that you don't usually need all eight wires but every time we tried that argument someone came up with a compelling reason to use more wires. I like that it is very standard. In the fiber world it is a continuous issue of hybrid patch cords dealing with ST,SC,LC and all the other variants out there. It would be a huge nightmare if the same thing happened with copper Ethernet.
I am also not a huge fan of the USB connector because I have seen a lot of those break and there is no positive retention. Magnetic is cute but has no place in a datacenter and even with desktops I can picture a lot of support calls because someone bumps a wire that knocks the mag connector out of place. I really hate dongles of all types but I guess you don't really have a choice with devices so physically thin that you can't get the jack in there.
I think I will keep the RJ for now.
Steven Naslund
-----Original Message----- From: Aled Morris [mailto:aledm@qix.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:38 PM To: Michael Thomas Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed?
On 20 December 2012 18:20, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote
ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years.
15-pin D-type AUI connectors with slide latches?
BNC for thinwire?
I do agree though, something more like mini-USB would be more appropriate for home Ethernet use.
Aled
I have noticed that too. However it is not the RJ-45 connector's fault. It is the morons that insist on recessing connectors in places where you can't get your finger on the tab. I like the patch cords that have the kind of loop/spring thing for a tab that does not catch on everything and that way you don't need the boot over the tab. Another pet peeve of mine is connector boots that harden up over time so it is nearly impossible to flex the tab to remove the cable. Also, how about the 48 port 6500 blades and trying to remove the cables near the blade extraction tabs. Grrrr.
Yes, the tabs you refer to are the best. I have never done business with
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com>wrote: this company, but that have a good picture for reference. http://www.computercablestore.com/10_FT_Booted_Cat5e_Networ_PID49403.aspx The full boots can be so thick that they won't fit into a high-density switch. If you're in a cold environment they go from difficult to compress to damn near impossible. More than once I've used a knife to cut a hardened boot off a cable so it's usable again. Jason
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 03:48:04PM -0600, Jason Baugher wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com>wrote:
I have noticed that too. However it is not the RJ-45 connector's fault. It is the morons that insist on recessing connectors in places where you can't get your finger on the tab. I like the patch cords that have the kind of loop/spring thing for a tab that does not catch on everything and that way you don't need the boot over the tab. Another pet peeve of mine is connector boots that harden up over time so it is nearly impossible to flex the tab to remove the cable. Also, how about the 48 port 6500 blades and trying to remove the cables near the blade extraction tabs. Grrrr.
Yes, the tabs you refer to are the best. I have never done business with this company, but that have a good picture for reference.
http://www.computercablestore.com/10_FT_Booted_Cat5e_Networ_PID49403.aspx
The full boots can be so thick that they won't fit into a high-density switch. If you're in a cold environment they go from difficult to compress to damn near impossible. More than once I've used a knife to cut a hardened boot off a cable so it's usable again.
Jason
And that's the main reason I never order cables with boots on them. They're mostly just unnecessary headaches. (BTW, you forgot to mention them slipping loose and just pulling away from the connector or the tab slipping out from under the rubber and making the cable all the more difficult to remove.) -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
Once upon a time, Wayne E Bouchard <web@typo.org> said:
And that's the main reason I never order cables with boots on them. They're mostly just unnecessary headaches. (BTW, you forgot to mention them slipping loose and just pulling away from the connector or the tab slipping out from under the rubber and making the cable all the more difficult to remove.)
I have seen one good use for boots. Somebody had a cable (that was in a position that made it difficult to replace or re-crimp) that had a RJ45 with a bad tab. It wasn't broken off, but it wouldn't really latch into the jack. So, they pulled the boot back slightly and slipped the "bump" of the boot _under_ the tab, and that held it up and the cable stayed in. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
On 12/21/12, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
I have noticed that too. However it is not the RJ-45 connector's fault. It is the morons that insist on recessing connectors in places where you can't get your finger on the tab. I like the patch cords that have the
Likely any connector with a latching retention mechanism requiring a manual release will have this kind of problem in space-constrained situations. A small flat edge screwdriver, spudger, or similar instrument can work wonders, since they are much longer than fingers. I suppose a fancier connector would involve a more robust metal spring, and a push-button release; or unlock through some method such as push in and slide. The terminal connectors are tiny; human hands are large by comparison, so when clearances are tight, in a recessed area, or in the case of a densely populated panel with many terminal ports, operating the retention mechanism by hand won't be fun. It could have been avoided by eliminating tabs in the connector design, and requiring a spring-loaded mechanism to release the connector, such as that done with USB and thunderbolt ports. This would also get rid of the problem of connector Tabs accidentally getting broken off, when the tab becomes snagged; which "boots" solve, but create other problems in the process. The ubiquity of the modular connector... has pluses such as low cost; no patent owner charging a mint per unit to license the connector; industry familiarity; device compatibility; (more or less) compatibility with older Cat5 media; 10/100/1000 nics.
kind of loop/spring thing for a tab that does not catch on everything and that way you don't need the boot over the tab. Another pet peeve of mine is connector boots that harden up over time so it is nearly impossible to flex the tab to remove the cable. Also, how about the 48
Prefab patch cables with a boot that is permanently attached to the connector, and cannot be easily pulled off if necessary to get at the tab.... someone should ban those cables from the market. Until they do... you may sometimes just have to cut off the 'nub' on the boot, with angle cutters to get at the tab; or apply pliers/other forceful tools to the boot/connector (at risk of damaging the actual port). A nice thing about the 8P8C terminal connectors is that the connectors are cheap, so the cabling can be reterminated, or prefab cable replaced with a fresh one later, to solve booting issues. I would still say they make sense and shouldn't be redesigned just for one kind of device; wherever 8-pair UTP cabling is the physical media.
Steven Naslund -- -JH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia@gmail.com>
On 12/21/12, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
I have noticed that too. However it is not the RJ-45 connector's fault. It is the morons that insist on recessing connectors in places where you can't get your finger on the tab. I like the patch cords that have the
Likely any connector with a latching retention mechanism requiring a manual release will have this kind of problem in space-constrained situations. A small flat edge screwdriver, spudger, or similar instrument can work wonders, since they are much longer than fingers.
I, too, have had to peel patch cables with boots off the front of a 4506; it is indeed no fun. That's not really where they belong, though; they belong on 6-12'+ *drop* cables, not on patch cables. There, they're useful in saving you having to reconnectorize a cable when you pull the clip off, while back-fishing it. You can -- and should -- order frame patch cables without the boots. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:50:52AM -0600, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On 12/21/12, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
I have noticed that too. However it is not the RJ-45 connector's fault. It is the morons that insist on recessing connectors in places where you can't get your finger on the tab. I like the patch cords that have the
Likely any connector with a latching retention mechanism requiring a manual release will have this kind of problem in space-constrained situations. A small flat edge screwdriver, spudger, or similar instrument can work wonders, since they are much longer than fingers.
Usually car keys are what are most readily at hand for me. :) They serve quite well until I get to a switch that some douchebag mounted rear facing on the front posts of the rack with servers above and below and I just stand there cursing for a while as I scratch my head trying to figure out how the hell to even get to the tab in the first place... -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
On 23 December 2012 01:07, Wayne E Bouchard <web@typo.org> wrote:
They serve quite well until I get to a switch that some douchebag mounted rear facing on the front posts of the rack
I see this all the time with low-end Cisco ISR products (2... and 3... routers) since CIsco insist on having a "pretty" plastic fascia with their logo, model number, power LED etc. on the unuseful side. Less experienced installers (being generous with my terminology) assume this is therefore the "front" and mount it facing on the front rails, leaving the connector side buried half way into the rack where only a proctologist can reach the plugs. I use this as a gauge of experience in interviews for engineers... "Here's a new router and here's the rack mount ears. Show me where they go." Aled
On 12/23/12 5:44 AM, Aled Morris wrote:
On 23 December 2012 01:07, Wayne E Bouchard <web@typo.org> wrote:
They serve quite well until I get to a switch that some douchebag mounted rear facing on the front posts of the rack
I see this all the time with low-end Cisco ISR products (2... and 3... routers) since CIsco insist on having a "pretty" plastic fascia with their logo, model number, power LED etc. on the unuseful side. Less experienced installers (being generous with my terminology) assume this is therefore the "front" and mount it facing on the front rails, leaving the connector side buried half way into the rack where only a proctologist can reach the plugs.
And this would be one of the many reasons why nearly all of the 1900s 2900s, 2600s and even the behemoth 7507 we have sitting around the shop have no more plastic bezels on them. :) -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
On 12/23/2012 7:44 AM, Aled Morris wrote:
On 23 December 2012 01:07, Wayne E Bouchard <web@typo.org> wrote:
They serve quite well until I get to a switch that some douchebag mounted rear facing on the front posts of the rack
I see this all the time with low-end Cisco ISR products (2... and 3... routers) since CIsco insist on having a "pretty" plastic fascia with their logo, model number, power LED etc. on the unuseful side.
Such routers have two fronts: a suit side and an operational side.
Less experienced installers (being generous with my terminology) assume this is therefore the "front" and mount it facing on the front rails, leaving the connector side buried half way into the rack where only a proctologist can reach the plugs. For further detail about the latter: http://f2.org/humour/songs/crs.html
I use this as a gauge of experience in interviews for engineers... "Here's a new router and here's the rack mount ears. Show me where they go."
Aled
The "Nonfunctional" side is critical for the LPI obsessed C?O demographic, and is therefor mandatory for most products. I wish I didn't know that. Nick On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz <hcb@netcases.net>wrote:
On 12/23/2012 7:44 AM, Aled Morris wrote:
On 23 December 2012 01:07, Wayne E Bouchard <web@typo.org> wrote:
They serve quite well until I get to a switch that some douchebag
mounted rear facing on the front posts of the rack
I see this all the time with low-end Cisco ISR products (2... and 3... routers) since CIsco insist on having a "pretty" plastic fascia with their logo, model number, power LED etc. on the unuseful side.
Such routers have two fronts: a suit side and an operational side.
Less experienced
installers (being generous with my terminology) assume this is therefore the "front" and mount it facing on the front rails, leaving the connector side buried half way into the rack where only a proctologist can reach the plugs.
For further detail about the latter: http://f2.org/humour/songs/**crs.html<http://f2.org/humour/songs/crs.html>
I use this as a gauge of experience in interviews for engineers... "Here's a new router and here's the rack mount ears. Show me where they go."
Aled
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:07:16 -0700, Wayne E Bouchard said:
They serve quite well until I get to a switch that some douchebag mounted rear facing on the front posts of the rack with servers above and below and I just stand there cursing for a while as I scratch my head trying to figure out how the hell to even get to the tab in the first place...
Has anybody ever seen this with a switch that's 2U or thicker? I've only seen it perpetrated with 1U switches, a situation that usually results in my lapsing into Russian.... (For the record, my knowledge of Russian is limited to those words that Latvian carpenters reserve for hammers that aim at thumbs. :)
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 07:53:26AM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:07:16 -0700, Wayne E Bouchard said:
They serve quite well until I get to a switch that some douchebag mounted rear facing on the front posts of the rack with servers above and below and I just stand there cursing for a while as I scratch my head trying to figure out how the hell to even get to the tab in the first place...
Has anybody ever seen this with a switch that's 2U or thicker? I've only seen it perpetrated with 1U switches, a situation that usually results in my lapsing into Russian....
2U seems possible (can't say for certain) but larger, seems like you'd have a fair chance of being able to make something work since you can at least get your hands where they need to be... unless you can't find a ladder.
(For the record, my knowledge of Russian is limited to those words that Latvian carpenters reserve for hammers that aim at thumbs. :)
An appropriate quote: "Profanity is the one language all programmers know." Works well for engineers too. :-) -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
You should give Apple a hint about designing a new Ethernet connector :)) They'll give you few tens of million users wanting new network equipment :))
Steve, something I hadn't thought about is the fiber mess. I see that in other areas as I mentioned in another answer. In the fiber world it is a continuous issue of hybrid patch cords dealing with ST,SC,LC and all the other variants out there. It would be a huge nightmare if the same thing happened with copper Ethernet. Ralph Brandt -----Original Message----- From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:SNaslund@medline.com] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:43 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? Please, no connectors that do not lock into place. Is plugging in the RJ-45 that much of a task? Most portable devices are going wireless in any case so they are not an issue. The RJ-45 has worked OK for me. The AUI connectors have a special place in networking hell. What an incredibly horrible mechanical design they were? The flip side of the question is why you think the RJ-45 should change. You could argue that you don't usually need all eight wires but every time we tried that argument someone came up with a compelling reason to use more wires. I like that it is very standard. In the fiber world it is a continuous issue of hybrid patch cords dealing with ST,SC,LC and all the other variants out there. It would be a huge nightmare if the same thing happened with copper Ethernet. I am also not a huge fan of the USB connector because I have seen a lot of those break and there is no positive retention. Magnetic is cute but has no place in a datacenter and even with desktops I can picture a lot of support calls because someone bumps a wire that knocks the mag connector out of place. I really hate dongles of all types but I guess you don't really have a choice with devices so physically thin that you can't get the jack in there. I think I will keep the RJ for now. Steven Naslund -----Original Message----- From: Aled Morris [mailto:aledm@qix.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:38 PM To: Michael Thomas Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? On 20 December 2012 18:20, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote
ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years.
15-pin D-type AUI connectors with slide latches? BNC for thinwire? I do agree though, something more like mini-USB would be more appropriate for home Ethernet use. Aled
On 12/20/2012 1:20 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
Seen an AUI or vampire tap recently? Vampires made a certain amount of sense, but the AUI connector seemed to have little purpose other than recycling weak metal from Coors beer cans. IIRC, the inventor apologized.
Sort of like saying why haven't we changed from RJ-48's for phones...old habits die hard I guess! For the most part the RJ-45 connector is pretty sturdy...remember those silly dongle cables that were used for pc-card Ethernet adapters in laptops...those things would last about a month before dying! As for the Raspiberry PI (I own one) it was silly to even put Ethernet on that instead of wi-fi, especially for the educational market that the PI was initially developed for; what classroom has Ethernet running to every desk especially in poor nations where copper theft is rampart! On 12/20/2012 01:40 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
On 12/20/2012 1:20 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
Seen an AUI or vampire tap recently? Vampires made a certain amount of sense, but the AUI connector seemed to have little purpose other than recycling weak metal from Coors beer cans. IIRC, the inventor apologized.
I think that you might be describing the DIX connector retaining clamp. Dave Edelman On Dec 20, 2012, at 13:40, "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@netcases.net> wrote:
On 12/20/2012 1:20 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike Seen an AUI or vampire tap recently? Vampires made a certain amount of sense, but the AUI connector seemed to have little purpose other than recycling weak metal from Coors beer cans. IIRC, the inventor apologized.
Having (once) tapped thicknet, done a lot of thinnet termination and cable cut debugging, and then used hubs and switches in 10BT and onwards... Having had one main standard (RJ45) has been a huge benefit to advancing the state of networking to where we are today. But it is probably worth questioning if that's true going forwards. Laptops and Rasberry PI devices and some other device types define a "light" category, where positive retention and self-cable-termination are probably not net positives. Device side space and interconnect insert/remove cycles (along with sufficiently stiff connection retention, but not necessarily mechanical) would be prime drivers for this class. For some users, even more positive than RJ45 is warranted. I at times work in and have a number of friends working in various aerospace and rocketry areas, and RJ45's have been widely known to come loose under acceleration. Those people use more positive connctors (M12, other IP67, etc) for the most part. Those other standards exist already, though it's not unified down to one right answer yet. For datacenters, servers, most desktops, etc., I don't know that there's a good case for change. RJ45 is not broke for those users. The comment upthread a bit about a 2-wire / 1 pair spec, interoperable with 4-wire / 2 pair switches, with a RJ45 at one end and a device connector at the other, makes sense to me. Most of the "light connector" users would not need the full bandwidth. Even if this turns out to not be easy enough to do, a 4-wire mini connector of some sort is not that big of a deal. Whether that's a micro-insert, a magnetic-attached, what details... I see good arguments for magnetic attach, but it's harder to make them small. I see good arguments for small, but those will be mechanical and less positively retained. I don't know that the discussion is a NANOG-centric one from here on in, but it's good to have raised the idea. -- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On 12/20/2012 01:13 PM, George Herbert wrote:
For some users, even more positive than RJ45 is warranted. I at times work in and have a number of friends working in various aerospace and rocketry areas, and RJ45's have been widely known to come loose under acceleration.
I found that a spliced toothpick does wonders to prevent that. ;-) -- Earthquake Magnitude: 5.6 Date: Thursday, December 20, 2012 21:47:30 UTC Location: Molucca Sea Latitude: 0.5465; Longitude: 126.2327 Depth: 31.20 km
I'm shocked there hasn't been a whisper of amphenol. As an rf guy, I vote all connectors move to sma or bnc. I can then justify the cost of a Walmart 10 foot cable for 25 dollars.. And if we gold plate them, we can charge a premium. ;)
From my Galaxy Note II, please excuse any mistakes.
-------- Original message -------- From: George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com> Date: 12/20/2012 1:15 PM (GMT-08:00) To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? Having (once) tapped thicknet, done a lot of thinnet termination and cable cut debugging, and then used hubs and switches in 10BT and onwards... Having had one main standard (RJ45) has been a huge benefit to advancing the state of networking to where we are today. But it is probably worth questioning if that's true going forwards. Laptops and Rasberry PI devices and some other device types define a "light" category, where positive retention and self-cable-termination are probably not net positives. Device side space and interconnect insert/remove cycles (along with sufficiently stiff connection retention, but not necessarily mechanical) would be prime drivers for this class. For some users, even more positive than RJ45 is warranted. I at times work in and have a number of friends working in various aerospace and rocketry areas, and RJ45's have been widely known to come loose under acceleration. Those people use more positive connctors (M12, other IP67, etc) for the most part. Those other standards exist already, though it's not unified down to one right answer yet. For datacenters, servers, most desktops, etc., I don't know that there's a good case for change. RJ45 is not broke for those users. The comment upthread a bit about a 2-wire / 1 pair spec, interoperable with 4-wire / 2 pair switches, with a RJ45 at one end and a device connector at the other, makes sense to me. Most of the "light connector" users would not need the full bandwidth. Even if this turns out to not be easy enough to do, a 4-wire mini connector of some sort is not that big of a deal. Whether that's a micro-insert, a magnetic-attached, what details... I see good arguments for magnetic attach, but it's harder to make them small. I see good arguments for small, but those will be mechanical and less positively retained. I don't know that the discussion is a NANOG-centric one from here on in, but it's good to have raised the idea. -- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
From: Warren Bailey [mailto:wbailey@satelliteintelligencegroup.com]
I'm shocked there hasn't been a whisper of amphenol. As an rf guy, I vote all connectors move to sma or bnc. I can then justify the cost of a Walmart 10 foot cable for 25 dollars.. And if we gold plate them, we can charge a premium. ;)
Let's just use MTC thermocouple connectors everywhere and be done with it. Jamie
On 21 December 2012 09:59, Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> wrote:
Something optical, like a >10 GBit/s SR version of TOSLINK would be nice.
Good luck with that! :-) Referring back to the original question and the reference to Raspberry Pi... The latest HDMI has Ethernet capability and the connector is already on the Pi, so there's a possible (future) solution that would work for all manner of consumer applications - even ones that don't need video or audio - just use the network capability of HDMI. Aled
On 12/21/2012 04:08 AM, Aled Morris wrote:
Good luck with that! :-) Referring back to the original question and the reference to Raspberry Pi... The latest HDMI has Ethernet capability and the connector is already on the Pi, so there's a possible (future) solution that would work for all manner of consumer applications - even ones that don't need video or audio - just use the network capability of HDMI. Aled
Interesting. I'd turn this back the other way though: in this day and age, why do we have any interconnection/bus that isn't just ethernet/IP? IP, as we all know, doesn't imply global reachability. What we far too often do with specialized IO channels is recreate networking, usually poorly. That too would solve the Raspberry Pi problem. Mike, naming being one big issue which is getting short-shrift in homenet
Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
I'd turn this back the other way though: in this day and age, why do we have any interconnection/bus that isn't just ethernet/IP?
The need for isochronous transmission and more bandwidth. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good, occasionally poor at first.
On 12/21/2012 09:29 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
I'd turn this back the other way though: in this day and age, why do we have any interconnection/bus that isn't just ethernet/IP? The need for isochronous transmission and more bandwidth.
That's why G*d invented RTP, of course. And all of these buses are "slow" by the time they're popular enough to worry about. In any case, delete the "ethernet" part if you want to still play with the mac/phy. Mike
Once upon a time, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> said:
That's why G*d invented RTP, of course. And all of these buses are "slow" by the time they're popular enough to worry about. In any case, delete the "ethernet" part if you want to still play with the mac/phy.
Well, the reply was sent in response to somebody talking about HDMI. HDMI 1.4 can carry over 8 gigabits per second, so to re-use ethernet PHY (and still be copper) you'd have to go with 10GBaseT. The cheapest 10GBaseT card I see at a glance is over $400, while I can find Blu-Ray players with HDMI 1.4 (and oh yeah, an optical drive, video decoder, etc.) for under $100. I'm sure some of that price difference is related to manufacturing volume, but I don't think it is that big of a percentage. I will say that one nice thing about having different connectors for different protocols (on consumer devices anyway) is that you don't have to worry about somebody plugging the Internet into the "Video 1" port and wondering why they aren't getting a picture. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
On 21 December 2012 18:22, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
I will say that one nice thing about having different connectors for different protocols (on consumer devices anyway) is that you don't have to worry about somebody plugging the Internet into the "Video 1" port and wondering why they aren't getting a picture.
I do agree but I also think that for HDMI Ethernet your TV (which is the device with lots of HDMI sockets) will act as an Ethernet switch, so there shouldn't be any "Ethernet enabled" vs. "Video Enabled" ports. Now of course that means you probably need Spanning Tree in your domestic appliances. Aled
On 12/21/2012 12:00 PM, Aled Morris wrote:
On 21 December 2012 18:22, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
I will say that one nice thing about having different connectors for different protocols (on consumer devices anyway) is that you don't have to worry about somebody plugging the Internet into the "Video 1" port and wondering why they aren't getting a picture.
I do agree but I also think that for HDMI Ethernet your TV (which is the device with lots of HDMI sockets) will act as an Ethernet switch, so there shouldn't be any "Ethernet enabled" vs. "Video Enabled" ports.
Now of course that means you probably need Spanning Tree in your domestic appliances.
In this day and age exactly how hard is this? Since it's all linux under the hood, isn't it just a brctl away? Mike
HDMI is also extremely distance limited. At those kinds of distances you probably would have no problem running 8 gbps over a Cat 6 with RJ-45s as well. I don't know how many people remember it but 1G used to be real expensive as well. In a few years you will see the 10 gbps D-Link switches at Best Buy for $40. Bottom line is that vendor know that people who need 10G speeds can afford to pay for the privilege. The important thing about consumer connectors is that plugging a cable in the wrong place should not blow anything up. You can use an RJ45 for anything you want as long as plugging that into an Ethernet port or console port doesn't smoke anything. There is not much magical about an HDMI cable, it is was just a way for the home entertainment equipment makers to avoid having your mom hooking up multiple component video, multichannel audio, and Ethernet and flooding their support phones. For datacenters there is no such push because there is no telling how many connections you need to a server and there are geeks like us to figure out the piles of wires. Steven Naslund -----Original Message----- From: Chris Adams [mailto:cmadams@hiwaay.net] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 12:22 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? Once upon a time, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> said:
That's why G*d invented RTP, of course. And all of these buses are "slow" by the time they're popular enough to worry about. In any case, delete
the "ethernet" part if you want to still play with the mac/phy.
Well, the reply was sent in response to somebody talking about HDMI. HDMI 1.4 can carry over 8 gigabits per second, so to re-use ethernet PHY (and still be copper) you'd have to go with 10GBaseT. The cheapest 10GBaseT card I see at a glance is over $400, while I can find Blu-Ray players with HDMI 1.4 (and oh yeah, an optical drive, video decoder, etc.) for under $100. I'm sure some of that price difference is related to manufacturing volume, but I don't think it is that big of a percentage. I will say that one nice thing about having different connectors for different protocols (on consumer devices anyway) is that you don't have to worry about somebody plugging the Internet into the "Video 1" port and wondering why they aren't getting a picture. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Distance, data rate required, bandwidth (like RF signals), analog signals and timing that Ethernet does not provide. I suppose that you cable box could encode everything as Ethernet/IP to send it to your TV but it would take lots of processing horsepower to encode/decode. Your stereo could take the analog output going to your speakers and encode it as a digital Ethernet/IP signal but then you would need to decode and amplify it at the speaker. Some signals are better off as analog or RF end to end. Your FM radio antenna is going to be pretty expensive if you want to use Ethernet between it and your stereo receiver. Steven Naslund -----Original Message----- From: Tony Finch [mailto:dot@dotat.at] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:30 AM To: Michael Thomas Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
I'd turn this back the other way though: in this day and age, why do we have any interconnection/bus that isn't just ethernet/IP?
The need for isochronous transmission and more bandwidth. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good, occasionally poor at first.
Because MA Bell is still alive and well and they still use them. They have divine right to provide phone service, didn't you know? Ralph Brandt -----Original Message----- From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike@mtcc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:20 PM To: NANOG list Subject: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too. So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's? Mike
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote: ....
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Because 8P8C connectors are well understood (both physically, and electrically)? And inertia matters. On some newer kit, Apple has removed the Ethernet port and uses a Thunderbolt <-> Ethernet dongle. Apple seems to link Ethernet ports are too big.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/20/2012 1:20 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
The connector is to ubiquitous to change. Other vendors have addressed the space issue by not supporting Ethernet, but forcing the use of a USB dongle (Macbook Air comes to mind). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ02leAAoJEBxhAh+LWUKihLsIAJFiUmoaKxHt0Cz0aDmtZGuT sPh1ET0FcNcblshSnt/Ii0kVbgnFJSxfr4s6FSvwWHJaoNZRpIFLQB5XBMHLX4VZ I61rc44XeQUABFoM+5dKFKUDLGcCTOttlFr9ndNDCJDiE3DYSe8yfel6t+Aq/mVf FXxbBbrPceeXXokugbdoPTdW0dBf7xSn3+xY4l+N56wSgJVpe7UHnXh5+TwWpgsN vQlP/RfVIeTuTLgcDqOUqiv/kj3g3cTQwpnuLSGshrJrepZbrgho/GX8yyf+ub45 KDo/k/uikvX5MTPnfbYGzsU4hloYTia8dSO/pQqz5DYx8kuJPr/dUCC62xUXXx8= =d80Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Andrew Gallo <akg1330@gmail.com> wrote:
The connector is to ubiquitous to change. Other vendors have addressed the space issue by not supporting Ethernet, but forcing the use of a USB dongle (Macbook Air comes to mind).
Thin net (50 ohm coax w/ BNC connectors) was ubiquitous once too. RJ45 with twisted pair had little trouble displacing it because it was much better. Every alternative I've seen to the RJ45 connector has been deficient in some major way. Hard to field terminate. Pulls loose too easily. Breaks if you look at it wrong. Etc. On the other hand, I wonder if it would be worth asking the 802.3 committee look at defining a single-pair ethernet standard that would interoperate with a normal 4-pair switch. So, you'd have two conductors into some kind of 2P2C micro-RJ connector on one end of the cable but into a full RJ45 connector on the other. A single-pair pair cable would run at best at a quarter of the speed of a four pair cable but for something like the Raspberry Pi that's really not a problem. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
On 12/20/2012 12:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On the other hand, I wonder if it would be worth asking the 802.3 committee look at defining a single-pair ethernet standard that would interoperate with a normal 4-pair switch. So, you'd have two conductors into some kind of 2P2C micro-RJ connector on one end of the cable but into a full RJ45 connector on the other. A single-pair pair cable would run at best at a quarter of the speed of a four pair cable but for something like the Raspberry Pi that's really not a problem. Regards, Bill Herrin
Yeah, that's kind of along the lines I'm thinking too. In the home of the future, say, I probably would like to have power/network for little sensors, etc, where you already have a gratuitous digital controller now, and then some. Do these things need to have gig-e speeds? Probably not... for a lot even Bluetooth speeds are probably fine. But they do want to be really small and really inexpensive. (Yes, I know about zigbee, but there's room for a variety of solutions depending on the situation.) Mike
On 2012-12-20, at 12:13 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Do these things need to have gig-e speeds? Probably not... for a lot even Bluetooth speeds are probably fine. But they do want to be really small and really inexpensive.
Then run RS-422 or RS-485 over a single twisted pair. You don't even need a connector – you can solder directly to the PCB. --lyndon
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Because they *work*. How much trouble do we have with USB or HDMI connectors coming loose? Also, RJ45 is around the minimum size where you can hand-terminate a cable. How would you go about quickly making a 36.5 foot 8 conductor cable with, say, micro USB ends? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
On 12/20/2012 11:43 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Also, RJ45 is around the minimum size where you can hand-terminate a cable. How would you go about quickly making a 36.5 foot 8 conductor cable with, say, micro USB ends?
You're assuming that that's a universal requirement. Most people in retail situations just buy the cables, or they are shipped with the widget. They're also pretty used to being screwed over by greedy manufacturers for whom cable churn is a profit center (I'm looking at you, Apple). Mike
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Michael Thomas wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
I've you've ever seen a truly 'dense' wiring closet, they are plenty dense already - dense enough that unplugging a single patch cable in a rack jammed full of switches is already a bit of a chore.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Inertia, for one thing. By that, I mean: 1. There hasn't been any real incentive to make the connectors smaller. 2. The installed base of copper Ethernet ports dwarfs pretty much anything except maybe POTS lines, and even there, different countries sometimes adopted their own standards. The costs of having to make physical changes to even a small portion of the installed cable plant would be unjustifiably prohibitive. There could also be some valid technical reasons: 1. The conductors really can't get any thinner. In fact, with Cat6A, they're somewhat thicker than Cat5E. 2. I would also think that the conductors/pins really can't get much closer together inside the connector shell, without cross-talk becoming more of a problem. I don't have any technical data to back this up at the moment, but it seems reasonable. 3. If assertions 1 and 2 are true, then the cable really can't get any thinner either. Again, if you look at Cat6A cable (especially shielded Cat6A), it is significantly thicker than Cat5E. jms
There could also be some valid technical reasons: 1. The conductors really can't get any thinner. In fact, with Cat6A, they're somewhat thicker than Cat5E. 2. I would also think that the conductors/pins really can't get much closer together inside the connector shell, without cross-talk becoming more of a problem. I don't have any technical data to back this up at the moment, but it seems reasonable. 3. If assertions 1 and 2 are true, then the cable really can't get any thinner either. Again, if you look at Cat6A cable (especially shielded Cat6A), it is significantly thicker than Cat5E.
I'll chime in here. With POTS, where essentially each "circuit" is identical in capacity and usage type, the only way to improve density is via the physical media -- and even then, you are still limited by conductor sizes. With Ethernet, you've seen an evolution from 10MB/s to 10Gb/s. This begs the question of what density you need, and against uh, say, 1000x improvement in capacity, what meaningful change could you make in terms of connector density? Even 10:1 is meaningless noise against a speed improvement at the circuit layer. Lots of Ethernet is still run identically to the way POTS lines are run. Large cable pulls back to central wiring closets. This is part of the problem. If one chose to adopt a model where connections are multiplexed/aggregated closer to their source and the aggregation brings with it higher signalling speeds --- [Think top-of-rack switching vs end-of-row switching]. I'm not saying its useful for everyone, but the idea is that if density were your issue, there are much better physical ways to manage the data requirements than the POTS model. In our office spaces (albeit in data center buildings) we have individual rooms with 24/48 port ethernet switches dedicated to the room. These uplink via a redundant pair of fiber. This represents lots of copper not making it out to the end-of-hall wiring closet which is now just a passive WDM fiber aggregation point. [Consummate savings in copper, weight, complexity, and labor -- at no significantly higher hardware failure risk]. Fiber has solved the density problem in a way that copper hasn't and this may be in part to reduced concerns about cross-talk and thinner media. So with so many options to reduce the amount of copper you need, and the use of fiber to move large amounts of connectivity much longer distances and at higher speeds, why would you still want to implement a wiring closet with 2000 RJ-45s anymore -- and if you have the justification, what's another 5 square feet to make it happen against the costs you're already incurring? DJ
Are you talking about the "N" connectors with those 802.3 transceiver cables, BNC connectors (10Base5), or an Type RJ45 (10Base-T) telco style connector? I couldn't find anyone selling multi-step thicknet strippers in the late 1980s, so I had to use a Xacto knife to prepare thicknet cable and then crimp about 20 N connectors. Data General donated 8 workstations and CAD circuit-design software to our University. The workstations used N-style transceivers instead of those with vampire taps. What a nightmare! )-; matthew black california state university, long beach -----Original Message----- From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike@mtcc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:20 AM To: NANOG list Subject: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too. So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's? Mike
http://www.blackbox.com/Store/Detail.aspx/Ethernet-Transceiver-Cable-Office-... Only $55.95 for a 3-foot transceiver cable. What was more surprising is that Black Box is still around. matthew black california state university, long beach -----Original Message----- From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike@mtcc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:20 AM To: NANOG list Subject: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too. So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's? Mike
Some of us still have a stock of legacy gear and cables - things like v35 cables for connecting to CSU/DSUs, and even the occasional AUI hub. :) You wouldn't believe how much people will pay for legacy computer gear when they need it to keep their business going. -- Brielle Sent from my iPhone On Dec 21, 2012, at 7:57 AM, Matthew Black <Matthew.Black@csulb.edu> wrote:
http://www.blackbox.com/Store/Detail.aspx/Ethernet-Transceiver-Cable-Office-...
Only $55.95 for a 3-foot transceiver cable. What was more surprising is that Black Box is still around.
matthew black california state university, long beach
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike@mtcc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:20 AM To: NANOG list Subject: why haven't ethernet connectors changed?
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
You didn't include RJ11 in your question.... it goes back further. One reason is that as we push the limits of cable from CAT3 (10meg) to CAT5 (100meg) to 5E (gig) to 6 (not sure what that was for) to 7 (10gig), the cable doesn't get any smaller. We're dealing with higher and higher frequencies of changes on the wire. This makes cross talk and interference a bigger problem, so the twists and insulation are more important to try to protect from those issues (sometimes shielding). So the cable hasn't gotten any smaller. The connector works well enough and allows for these distances to be maintained. Some vendors have found ways to maintain the twists farther into the RJ45 by essentially using traces and not just lining the 8 wires up in parallel but stacking them in a staggered fashion... Obviously, a new connector could have been found, but why haven't we changed the C13 that HP came up with (at least I think they did) back in the 50s? Its still the defacto standard for all computer input power. As a matter of fact, most NEMA specs haven't changed since they were created... If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The only problem with the RJ45 is the hook. E On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Brielle Bruns <bruns@2mbit.com> wrote:
Some of us still have a stock of legacy gear and cables - things like v35 cables for connecting to CSU/DSUs, and even the occasional AUI hub. :)
You wouldn't believe how much people will pay for legacy computer gear when they need it to keep their business going.
-- Brielle
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 21, 2012, at 7:57 AM, Matthew Black <Matthew.Black@csulb.edu> wrote:
http://www.blackbox.com/Store/Detail.aspx/Ethernet-Transceiver-Cable-Office-...
Only $55.95 for a 3-foot transceiver cable. What was more surprising is
that Black Box is still around.
matthew black california state university, long beach
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike@mtcc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:20 AM To: NANOG list Subject: why haven't ethernet connectors changed?
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the
ethernet
connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:34 AM, eric clark <cabenth@gmail.com> wrote:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The only problem with the RJ45 is the hook.
That's what cable boots are for. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
I have seen the sixty or so messages about this and have marveled how many can major on the minutia and ignore the obvious which Brielle brings out. First, Ethernet connectors have changed - Thicknet (RG8) with transceiver cables, thinnet, and now CAT series cables. Yep, I have bored in the vampire taps and crimped thinnet. In another venue I work we still have millions maybe billions of lines of COBOL code. Why? Because it works. Because the cost of conversion to something else is prohibitive. It is being done by attrition and I might say, painfully. One organization I am aware of was to have been extracted from the tar baby of its COBOL code that was originally written in 1968 in COBOL D before Y2K had to fix all of that to run properly over the millennium. And one company I am aware of had to convert its COBOL F to COBOL II to get there. I haven't followed it since 2003 but they were still working on getting free from COBOL then when I was offered a job helping them extricate from the mess. I was having too much fun with WAN's. BTW, I am retiring 2/28/13 - if anyone has a COBOL and/or CICS job out there with the right location and situation I may be interested. I am fantastic as translating COBOL into a language JAVA coders can understand. I write JAVA, I do not call JAVA coders programmers. Programming is the next thing to retirement. And RJ-45 has some of the same characteristics. It works. There are trillions of them out there in use and on equipment (the corresponding jacks). There are millions of techs who can put them on. Well, maybe that is going a little too far. I have seen too many techs who claim to know how who should be hung with their cabling. They are used for everything so nearly every wiring discipline knows them. There are millions of sets of tools to attach them. I just saw an installation where a ham radio transmitter was set up in a hospital "in case everything else fails" and they put the transmitter at the roof, ran a 20 foot pre-made coaxial cable with PL259's to the antenna and two CAT-5's down to the operator area where they put the control. The transceiver allows separation of the control head and the transceiver. The one cat 5 carries the controls - the connectors on the units are RJ-45. The other CAT-5? They made one pair out of the CAT5, tied 4 wires together to get enough copper to handle the speaker. Reason? The hospital wiring staff did not know how to put on a PL259 on RG-213. (Similar to RG-8). But they could run CAT-5 and put on RJ-45's. So to change we have to provide training, tools, adapters (another nightmare), labor to convert and for what? There is no other connector I am aware of and I haven't heard of any serious contender from anyone here. That means 30 million dollars development (my estimate) and five years till we get the beta models. And for what? I can't see any way we could get more than a 20% higher density, even ignoring noise and crosstalk issues. And even if we can get 50% more would it be worth it? Answer, MAYBE in some very specialized and/or badly designed situations (concentrating too much copper in one place rather than distributing to "close up switches" with fiber) where a higher density would be of value, yes. But now we create another set of adapters. I am a Ham Radio Operator - Extra Class. I work with Emergency Communications. Having one more connector type is one more big headache. Yes, if there is a real advantage, fine. Most ham hand held transceivers went from the venerable and solid BNC to the SMA a few years ago. They screw a 18 inch antenna on an SMA! Guess what? They break when you are lucky, otherwise they go intermittent. And just to make it more interesting one of the Chinese suppliers of very inferior HT's uses an SMA male on the radio, not an SMA female like everyone else. So now instead of having three antenna connector types in general use, N, PL259, BNC, each with their strengths and weaknesses and reasons to use in certain places, we have 5 with no serous reason for two of them. Note that HT's have used BNC and SMA, mobiles and bases are generally N, PL259 with a few BNC. I have standardized on bas/mobile at PL259 and SMA male for HT to maintain sanity. And to be able to work with others who have a dukes mixture I carry a small box of adapters. The IT industry trail is littered with computer languages that were written to fix some non-existent problem and all that did was create more confusion. Many claimed to allow anyone to code programs, something that is true but when you use people who really do not know how to program you produce tons of shit code that is nasty to make changes to - and maintenance of programs is usually 90% of life cycle costs. It is the same in a wire room when you let someone who doesn't know how to properly place wire do it. PASCAL is one example I can cite. It had absolutely no advantage over several other languages existing at the time but academia thought it was cute and pushed it. A few industries used it and created havoc with it. There were others like Ideal that many of you never heard of because they were never widely used but created a conversion opportunity when they were no longer supported. Ralph Brandt -----Original Message----- From: Brielle Bruns [mailto:bruns@2mbit.com] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 10:16 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed? Some of us still have a stock of legacy gear and cables - things like v35 cables for connecting to CSU/DSUs, and even the occasional AUI hub. :) You wouldn't believe how much people will pay for legacy computer gear when they need it to keep their business going. -- Brielle Sent from my iPhone On Dec 21, 2012, at 7:57 AM, Matthew Black <Matthew.Black@csulb.edu> wrote:
http://www.blackbox.com/Store/Detail.aspx/Ethernet-Transceiver-Cable-Off ice-Environment-PVC-IEEE-802-3-Right-Angle-Connector-3-ft-0-9-m/LCN216%C 4%820003
Only $55.95 for a 3-foot transceiver cable. What was more surprising
is that Black Box is still around.
matthew black california state university, long beach
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike@mtcc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:20 AM To: NANOG list Subject: why haven't ethernet connectors changed?
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large
the ethernet
connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybody cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring closets, etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
participants (43)
-
Aled Morris -
Andre Gironda -
Andrew Gallo -
Bill Woodcock -
Brandt, Ralph -
Bret Clark -
Brielle Bruns -
Chris Adams -
David Edelman -
Deepak Jain -
Emily Ozols -
eric clark -
Eric Wieling -
Eugen Leitl -
Eugeniu Patrascu -
Gary Buhrmaster -
George Herbert -
Howard C. Berkowitz -
Jamie Bowden -
Jason Baugher -
Jay Ashworth -
Jeroen van Aart -
Jimmy Hess -
joel jaeggli -
Joshua Goldbard -
Justin M. Streiner -
Kurt -
Lyndon Nerenberg -
Matthew Black -
Michael Loftis -
Michael Thomas -
Naslund, Steve -
Nick B -
Randy Bush -
Ross Harvey -
tech-lists＠packet-labs.net -
Tom Morris -
Tony Finch -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
Vinny_Abello＠Dell.com -
Warren Bailey -
Wayne E Bouchard -
William Herrin