I have a new location built in 1999 with a lot of CAT3, previously
used for a digital phone system. Wrecking it out would be
prohibitively expensive, but CAT3 isn't useful for much of anything
these days. But would it be possible to use it for a VOIP phone
system? I should be able to get 10MBps thr
I don't have direct experience but here's my thoughts...
1. 10M ethernet is half-duplex. That might be a problem, but your
VOIP vendor can tell you for sure. If you are full-duplex between the
switches, and each location gets a dedicated switched port (no hubs)
I'm guessing things would be fine,
I'd play it safe and hard-set all the ports on the switch you're going
to use to feed those lines to 10Mb/Half-Duplex. Auto-neg is most likely
going to get you into trouble on modern switches over such old copepr.
Nick Whalen
___
Discuss mailing list
D
Tom Limoncelli writes:
> 1. 10M ethernet is half-duplex.
Er, really? That's not my recollection. (And the first couple google
hits tell me full duplex was supported on 10BaseT)
Generally though, I'd expect it to work. The nbx100 phones (proprietary
voip) were only 10M devices for a long time.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:29 AM, seph wrote:
> Tom Limoncelli writes:
>
>> 1. 10M ethernet is half-duplex.
>
> Er, really? That's not my recollection. (And the first couple google
> hits tell me full duplex was supported on 10BaseT)
But on CAT3?
> Generally though, I'd expect it to work. The nb
Another possibility, if you're just looking to do telephony, would be
to pick up a stack of 2nd hand TDM phones (i.e. cheap) and run TDM
across the cat3 to a Citel adapter box in the closet, that then does
SIP to a PBX.
But my gut says that as long as you're 1 device per port, 10M ethernet
seph wrote:
>> 1. 10M ethernet is half-duplex.
>>
>
> Er, really? That's not my recollection. (And the first couple google
> hits tell me full duplex was supported on 10BaseT)
>
> Generally though, I'd expect it to work. The nbx100 phones (proprietary
> voip) were only 10M devices for a long
Atom Powers wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:29 AM, seph wrote:
>
>> Tom Limoncelli writes:
>>
>>
>>> 1. 10M ethernet is half-duplex.
>>>
>> Er, really? That's not my recollection. (And the first couple google
>> hits tell me full duplex was supported on 10BaseT)
>>
>
> But
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nick Whalen
wrote:
> seph wrote:
>>> 1. 10M ethernet is half-duplex.
>>>
>>
>> Er, really? That's not my recollection. (And the first couple google
>> hits tell me full duplex was supported on 10BaseT)
>>
>> Generally though, I'd expect it to work. The nbx100 phon
Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> 10BT was HD originally (before switches existed, we only had HD hubs,
> remember?). The FD version was never widely adopted because 100BT was
> available then. I don't think I ever had a machine that was 10BT FD
> if I recall correctly; what I read about them was that no t
Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nick Whalen
> wrote:
>
>> seph wrote:
>>
1. 10M ethernet is half-duplex.
>>> Er, really? That's not my recollection. (And the first couple google
>>> hits tell me full duplex was supported on 10BaseT)
>>>
>>>
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Richard Chycoski
wrote:
>
> If you use 10BaseT, set the duplex manually, don't rely on autonegotiation.
Good to know.
> FD may have some crosstalk problems on poor CAT-3, but should work fine
> on decent, properly terminated CAT-3. If there are R-66 blocks in the
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 10:56:44AM -0800, Atom Powers wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Richard Chycoski
> wrote:
> >
>
> Installed in 1999 by a large software company, I suspect it's pretty
> decent cable. All currently on 66-blocks but I'm going to try to get
> it moved to patch panels.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Matt Okeson-Harlow wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 10:56:44AM -0800, Atom Powers wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Richard Chycoski
>> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Installed in 1999 by a large software company, I suspect it's pretty
>> decent cable. All currently o
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Atom Powers wrote:
> Because I'm not planning to pull new CAT5 to those offices. They
> already have 2x CAT5 and 2x CAT3. While I only /need/ two runs, it
> would be a shame if I couldn't find a use for the CAT3.
Doing a few runs of a lower-quality cable is very 19
Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Atom Powers wrote:
>
>> Because I'm not planning to pull new CAT5 to those offices. They
>> already have 2x CAT5 and 2x CAT3. While I only /need/ two runs, it
>> would be a shame if I couldn't find a use for the CAT3.
>>
>
> Doing a f
+ consider PoE
--
*** Sent from my Nokia N900
- Original message -
> Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Atom Powers wrote:
> >
> > > Because I'm not planning to pull new CAT5 to those offices. They
> > > already have 2x CAT5 and 2x CAT3. While I only /need/ two r
We are currently running a number of Cisco VoIP phones over Cat3 cable by
locking the switch port at 10 Mbps. They're running half duplex and we haven't
noted any problems.
Port Name Status Vlan Duplex Speed Type
Fa6/46CAT3 voice kludge connected214
18 matches
Mail list logo
