Thanks for the correction. To me, straight-thru wiring was straight-thru. Nice to know some reason to do one vs. the other.
Quoting Charles Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Just for reference, 568-B is not exactly "compatible" with phone wiring color > codes. 568-A is. > As long as you are using patch panels and patch cords you will never know the > difference though. > > But if you take jacks that are wired 568-B, then punch them down on a 66 > block for cross connecting, then the green and orange will be in reversed > positions. Since the KXT proprietary phones rely on the orange pair (3-6), > this could cause confusion... > In other words, a 25 pair cable coming out of the ksu will use the blue and > orange pair for the first extension. If you connect that to a jack wired > with 568-B, you will have to remember to connect the orange ksu pair to the > green pair on the jack. > > AT&T is the only phone manufacturer I know that liked to use 568b for all > their jacks. Since their small ksu's were usually modular to modular, it > didn't make too much difference... that is until you try to replace the > system with a Panasonic, and now find that all the jacks won't work right. > > As long as it works! > Charles > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tom Stewart > To: KXT Help List > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 11:48 AM > Subject: KX-T: "improved?" panapatch > > > As I said in an earlier email, I love the idea of the PanaPatch, but the > price > was too much for me (home owner/hobbyist), so I wanted to share my > experiences > with the group. > > I had wired my house quite some time ago with Cat5E cable, two runs per > outlet, and generally two outlets per room. The idea was one network port > and > one phone port (and one cable tv) per box. Since it was compatible with > standard phone wiring and plugs, I wired both data and phone jacks with > 568-B > wiring, straight thru. On the head end, the wiring terminates in a standard > 24 > port patch panel. So, for my situation, I bought another patch panel via > ebay, > and wired up a 25 pair cable to it, in very much the same fashion as the > PanaPatch, except that I dediced to do something with the fourth pair. For > > pins 1 and 8, I punched them down with one continuous pair (daisy-chained) > > which is terminated in an RJ-11. This I can plug into one analog jack on > the > front to provide one common "extension" to all jacks. In my case, I have > plugged it into the port that provides CallerID. In this way, I have > callerID > available at every jack; I just have to wire up a funky line cord with an > RJ- > 45 connected to two separate RJ-11's -- one of which connects pins 3-6 on > the > RJ-45 to 1-4 on the RJ-11 for the standard connection, and another which > connects pins 1,8 on the RJ-45 to 2,3 on the second RJ-11. This can then > get > plugged into a caller ID box for display. > > If I had to do it over, I *might* do the phone wiring as RJ-61 instead of > T568- > B, since currently the two outer pairs aren't twisted correctly for my > application. I'm hoping it doesn't matter... > > Anyway, just wanted to pass along the thought. > > _________________________________________________________________ > KX-T Mailing list --- http://kxthelp.com/ > Subscription changes: http://kxthelp.com/mailman/listinfo/kxt > > > > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > _________________________________________________________________ > KX-T Mailing list --- http://kxthelp.com/ > Subscription changes: http://kxthelp.com/mailman/listinfo/kxt > _________________________________________________________________ KX-T Mailing list --- http://kxthelp.com/ Subscription changes: http://kxthelp.com/mailman/listinfo/kxt
