# Long Ethernet Run



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Is it possible (Meaning will it actually work) to run Cat6 cable about 250-300 feet, and still get a usable signal at the other end?


----------



## nickff (Dec 8, 2007)

kevinturcotte said:


> Is it possible (Meaning will it actually work) to run Cat6 cable about 250-300 feet, and still get a usable signal at the other end?


From Wikipedia (I know, I know..):

"The maximum allowed length of a Cat-6 cable is 100 meters (330 ft) when used for 10/100/1000baseT. This consists of 90 meters (300 ft) of solid "horizontal" cabling between the patch panel and the wall jack, plus 10 meters (33 ft) of stranded patch cable between each jack and the attached device. Since stranded cable has higher attenuation than solid cable, exceeding 10 meters of patch cabling will reduce the permissible length of horizontal cable.

When used for 10GbaseT, Cat-6 cable's maximum length is 55 meters (180 ft) in a favorable alien crosstalk environment, but only 37 meters (120 ft) in a hostile alien crosstalk environment such as when many cables are bundled together. 10GbaseT runs of up to 100 meters (330 ft) are permissible using Cat-6a."

Also: http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

This is JUST for high speed (15 Mbps) internet access, so that should work I would think? Is it possible to add wireless at the other end that can't see/access anything else on my network?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> This is JUST for high speed (15 Mbps) internet access, so that should work I would think? Is it possible to add wireless at the other end that can't see/access anything else on my network?


If you can reliably transmit 1gbps at 300 feet as that article suggests, that's more than 2x-3x what you'd need for N wireless, so shouldn't be an issue at all.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

The built in card only does b and g. What would be suggested on the other end?


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Kevin If you have runs that long, you should consider a wireless router, preferably wireless N and use a wireless N adapter at the lonest distance. You can use the wireless G adapter in your computer with a wireless N router. Another option is to use a range booster in concert with a wireless router.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I'm getting confused (nothing unusual).

As I read it you want to make a wired run of approximately 300' and put a wireless access point at the distant end for other computers.

Should not be a problem. The cable (Cat 5 or Cat 6) can handle the traffic and distance fine. Your choice of wireless devices at the distant end and how you set permissions on the LAN will determine if they can 'see' anything else on your system.

Now, if I've misunderstood and you don't want to run a cable that distance, I would not recommend trying to use a wireless connection at 300' in any band without using directional antennas at both ends to ensure a more reliable signal.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> I'm getting confused (nothing unusual).
> 
> As I read it you want to make a wired run of approximately 300' and put a wireless access point at the distant end for other computers.
> 
> ...


I want to run a long cable, and setup a wireless access (g) at the other end. What would be recommended for this?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Oddly enough, actual Access Points are more expensive than Routers with wireless capabilities. I have no idea why. Find a decent router with wireless and make sure you can set it to work as an Access Point instead of a router. Most decent ones can, bujt check the specs first before you buy. I don't have any "N" routers so I can't recommend a specific one. This will also give you additional ports for other equipment if you need to add anything like a printer.

LinkSys also makes a wireless extender/repeater that will do what you want (wired to wireless). They used to be available at Office Depot and similar places.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Would 2 routers place nice together though?
Also, anyway to take a wireless signal, and amplify it before wirelessly sending it back out?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

No, you don't want two routers, they'll conflict with each other and cause problems with IP addresses. At least you don't want two routers acting as routers. The distant box can be a router as long as you turn that function off internally.

Just checked, the router I'm using is a dLink WBR-2310. It's only a G though, but it does have Access Point only capability and some content management features.

Not sure what you mean on your last question.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Is there anything that will capture a wireless signal, and then amplify it before it sends it back out?


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Yes, it is called a wireless repeater.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Grentz said:


> Yes, it is called a wireless repeater.


That might be even better. Here's the situation:
Posted in another thread about my Uncle getting a netbook, and he wants internet for it. He's next door. I don't have wireless, and don't want wireless, but I wouldn't have a problem running an ethernet cable to his house. However, his neighbor on the other side does have a wireless router, and told him he could leech off it, but the signal isn't that great where he plans to use the netbook. If we could get a signal booster/repeater for him though, that would be GREAT!!!


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Instead of using the wireless in the Netbook, you might get better signal from the neighbor's house mounting a WGA600 or WET610 client bridge outside under the eave nearest the neighbor's house (in a tupperware plastic for some weather shielding) and run the net cable inside to the netbook or a switch in the house.

Ubiquiti makes G or N access points / bridges that are self contained antennas and Power over Ethernet that mount outside very nicely. Also under $100.

Also, a wireless router can be used as an access point by turning off DHCP and assigning a LAN address to it and only use the LAN ports. I suppose they're cheaper than an AP because of volume?


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

I prefer hardline.
I run my cables at about 250ft, then put 4 port/5-port switches in between if I need to keep going. But that depends on what your power options are.
Whats your longest distance without power? You want to put power as close as possible to each end point of that distance.

If you don't care about signal quality, then wireless works too. Setup your primary router where-ever you like, then setup a Ethernet Bridge/Client Bridge. You can also get wired/wireless Access Points/Repeaters.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

CJTE said:


> I prefer hardline.
> I run my cables at about 250ft, then put 4 port/5-port switches in between if I need to keep going. But that depends on what your power options are.
> Whats your longest distance without power? You want to put power as close as possible to each end point of that distance.
> 
> If you don't care about signal quality, then wireless works too. Setup your primary router where-ever you like, then setup a Ethernet Bridge/Client Bridge. You can also get wired/wireless Access Points/Repeaters.


I prefer hardline too. No wireless in my house. *MIGHT* consider it with whatever comes after 802.11n.
He just doesn't want to dig a 300 foot trench between the houses, which I can't really blame him there. Especially since there's already phone line running between our house and the utility pole at the 1/2 way point, and power cable running from the utility pole to his house.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

I'm not sure whether ordinary cat5/cat6 is even rated for outdoor/underground use. You might want to check that out before making a decision.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Buffalo offers a long-range wireless gizmo with an antenna that looks remarkably like a dish.

It would be up to the users to verify that using such a system would not be a violation of ToS.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

If you have decent line of sight, you can use a directional wireless antenna and go for a very long ways.

I set one up for a friend to beam wireless from his house to the boat dock, which was about 300 yards.
We got full strength signal there, so we got in the boat and went across the cove, another 1/2 miles or so. We were still getting 80% there.

http://www.deliberant.com/landing/deliberant_landing.htm


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

kevinturcotte said:


> I prefer hardline too. No wireless in my house. *MIGHT* consider it with whatever comes after 802.11n.
> He just doesn't want to dig a 300 foot trench between the houses, which I can't really blame him there. Especially since there's already phone line running between our house and the utility pole at the 1/2 way point, and power cable running from the utility pole to his house.


What did you use to run the phone line?
If you used Cat5 you can run a 100mb network over the green and orange pairs, and run 2 telephone lines (1 over the blue pair which is "the standard" and the other over the brown pair)

You can run a 10mb line over Cat3 (older residential wiring).
IIRC you can't run a 100mb line over Cat3 because the pairs aren't twisted. But, it's been years since I've messed with Cat3


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

4HiMarks said:


> I'm not sure whether ordinary cat5/cat6 is even rated for outdoor/underground use. You might want to check that out before making a decision.


Professionally, you're supposed to use conduit.
Personally, if you're going underground, conduit is definetly a smart way to go to protect against elements.
The cross-building runs I've done were always overhead and short-term (no more than 1 year).


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

CJTE said:


> What did you use to run the phone line?
> If you used Cat5 you can run a 100mb network over the green and orange pairs, and run 2 telephone lines (1 over the blue pair which is "the standard" and the other over the brown pair)
> 
> You can run a 10mb line over Cat3 (older residential wiring).
> IIRC you can't run a 100mb line over Cat3 because the pairs aren't twisted. But, it's been years since I've messed with Cat3


Direct from the phone company, so I imagine it's Cat 3.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

kevinturcotte said:


> This is JUST for high speed (15 Mbps) internet access, so that should work I would think? Is it possible to add wireless at the other end that can't see/access anything else on my network?


I didn't notice this post earlier because I was headed out the door.

Assuming you decide to go wired, and your max length is 275ft (from endpoint to endpoint). You plug one end into your router, and the other end into his wireless access point (he doesn't need a router, but whatever's cheaper works).

You have a few options to keep him off your part of the network, but it depends on what kind of equipment you have and your setup.
You have 1 public IP address (an address that doesn't start with 192, 127, 172, 169, or 010). Assuming you have a modem, and a seperate router, you need to determine where your public IP address is. Does your modem bridge to your router, and give your router the IP address? Or, does your modem hold onto the IP address, and give your router a private address (with one of the ranges I mentioned above).
Like this:
A)
MODEM gets 55.107.22.104 from ISP, passes it to ROUTER.
ROUTER is in control of 55.107.22.104 and passes 192.168.x.x to clients.

B)
MODEM gets 55.107.22.104 from ISP and passes 192.168.2.2 to router
ROUTER is in control 192.168.2.2 and passes 192.168.1.x to clients

You can check to see which address you are getting in your routers status/setup page. It's called the WAN address.
Option A usually happens on cable modems that are not wireless, and only have 1 ethernet port.
Option B usually happens on DSL modems, wireless modems, or modems that have multiple ethernet ports.

In this case, Option B is the simplest for you.
If your modem has multiple ethernet ports, plug your router into ethernet port 1, and his wire into ethernet port 2. Your routers firewall will keep him from accessing your network.
If your modem has only 1 ethernet port, use a dumb switch to "split" your connection. Plug the modem into one port, your router into another port, and his wire into another port.

Option A is going to be kind of tricky. The easiest thing for you to do would be to get another router. Your current router will herein be known as Router2. Your new router will herein be known as Router1.
Plug your modem into the WAN port on Router1. Plug Router2 into one of the LAN ports on Router1. Plug his wire into another LAN port on Router1.
Go into the settings on Router1, find the DMZ setting, enable it, and put Router2's WAN IP address in the field.
The alternative would be to get a router capable of running DD-WRT (or a router capable of setting up vLans), and put yourself into vLan1, and him into vLan2.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

What kind of development are you in!?

I guess I'm a bit confused that your uncle would have to dig a 300ft trench from one house to the other, yet he's able to get wireless signal from the neighbor on the other side.

If he can get a good signal 'somewhere' in his house, from the neighbor, and the neighbor is cool with sharing...
Grab a wireless ethernet bridge (like the HR20's use), set it up to receive signal from the neighbor, then run a wire from the ethernet bridge to your uncles very own access point/router.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124190

You can use these as extenders without an issue. There's tons of information on them online and you can flash them with different ROMS (always read carefully prior to as you can brick these) but it may be what you're looking for.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124190
> 
> You can use these as extenders without an issue. There's tons of information on them online and you can flash them with different ROMS (always read carefully prior to as you can brick these) but it may be what you're looking for.


Indeed, but if price is an issue I highly recommend
The WGR614L.

The WRT54GL runs off a 200mhz processor, the WGR614L runs off a 240mhz processor. I don't remember if the WRT54GL has removable antennas (the WGR614L does not unless you want to open it up and re-solder the connection).

They both have 16MB of RAM, and 4MB of flash. The Linksys runs of the Broadcom 5352 chipset, whereas the Netgear runs off the 5354.

If you don't need removable antennas (or don't mind opening up the box and tinkering), go with the netgear.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

The WRT54GL does have removable antennas, which is one of the big advantages of it for DIY setups.


----------

