Extend my ethernet/

[don_resqcapt19]

While I understand the general rule not to run these types of cables between buildings, at an industrial plant I did a lot of work at, we had a number of 100-200' Ethernet runs between buildings for PLC communications and had no issues. Even on a recent upgrade, we kept some of them copper because of the high cost of the fiber communications card needed if we changed to fiber. All of the longer runs between buildings were fiber, but those far exceeded the 100 meter limit for copper.

 

[ptonsparky]

While I understand the general rule not to run these types of cables between buildings, at an industrial plant I did a lot of work at, we had a number of 100-200' Ethernet runs between buildings for PLC communications and had no issues. Even on a recent upgrade, we kept some of them copper because of the high cost of the fiber communications card needed if we changed to fiber. All of the longer runs between buildings were fiber, but those far exceeded the 100 meter limit for copper.

We're those cables the only additional paths?

 

[petersonra]

While I understand the general rule not to run these types of cables between buildings, at an industrial plant I did a lot of work at, we had a number of 100-200' Ethernet runs between buildings for PLC communications and had no issues. Even on a recent upgrade, we kept some of them copper because of the high cost of the fiber communications card needed if we changed to fiber. All of the longer runs between buildings were fiber, but those far exceeded the 100 meter limit for copper.

100-200' is substantially less than the 100 meter limit specified.

I am kind of surprised you found the fiber optic interfaces to be excessively expensive. You can get an unmanaged switch with a fiber port for about $100 more than the same switch without the fiber port.

 

[Amps]

TP Ethernet is multiple electrically-isolated balanced lines inside the cable (there are tiny transformers at each end).
Signal grounding? Not relevant to TP Ethernet.
Noise? See balanced line.
Attenuation occurs with every millimeter of cable, but takes a while to become significant.
TP Ethernet is only officially good for 100 meters anyway.
As pretty much all of us have said- go wireless.

While I understand the general rule not to run these types of cables between buildings, at an industrial plant I did a lot of work at, we had a number of 100-200' Ethernet runs between buildings for PLC communications and had no issues. Even on a recent upgrade, we kept some of them copper because of the high cost of the fiber communications card needed if we changed to fiber. All of the longer runs between buildings were fiber, but those far exceeded the 100 meter limit for copper.

If the copper cables are seperated from high voltage circuits. Not sure how the DIYer is going to install if he chooses copper. Wireless is the fastest and easiest although less secure. I have installed several fiber circuits to barns, equestrian buildings, etc. and it is a breeze using the pre-made to order kits.

 

[tthh]

I don't view this an an either/or situation. If you have a big property, you want some kind of Wifi covering all the areas you are going to regularly hang out. You want to be able to roam seamlessly from one Wifi access point to another. Some of the consumer grade devices like Google mesh are fine or you may want to get something higher up like Ubiquiti or Cisco. As as aside, I have the consumer Ubiquiti version AmpliFi in my daughter's house. But But But, unless you just can't physically do it, you want all the Wifi access points to be backhauled with something physical like copper or fiber. Once you start doing backhaul using wireless, you get into another level of complexity and maintainability that you don't need nor want, unless of course, if just isn't physically possible to run copper/fiber.

 

[gene6]

I 'skimmed in' direct burial cat5 to the back barn at my place, probably 6" deep.
That was after it lay on the ground and a fence for a few years.
I am technically quite over the distance, plugged it into a old router no dice.
Got a coworker to check it out and she clicked a few buttons put a post-it note on my barn router
that says "keep DCHP off".
After that works decent.

 

[GeorgeB]

NOT my trade, but i am trying for a mesh network @ my farm .......

~RJ~

As others have said, Ubiquity is very good. In the consumer market, I've had excellent results with Netgear's ORBI products. They offer an outdoor (directional too) antenna IIRC.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

100-200' is substantially less than the 100 meter limit specified.

I am kind of surprised you found the fiber optic interfaces to be excessively expensive. You can get an unmanaged switch with a fiber port for about $100 more than the same switch without the fiber port.

This was the cost of the fiber network card that goes into the PLC rack. The PLC network configuration standard for the brand of PLC does not permit those other types of connections.

 

[hbiss]

If it were me, I would get a second router, one that features long range, connect it to your primary router with a network cable

I am technically quite over the distance, plugged it into a old router no dice.
Got a coworker to check it out and she clicked a few buttons put a post-it note on my barn router
that says "keep DCHP off".

Ahh, yeah. Only one router per network. Everything else can to be simple unmanaged switches. A router is what hands out DHCP addresses to everything on the network and if everything was a router- not going to work.

-Hal

 

[Sea Nile]

Ahh, yeah. Only one router per network. Everything else can to be simple unmanaged switches. A router is what hands out DHCP addresses to everything on the network and if everything was a router- not going to work.

-Hal

You can use multiple routers, I have two routers set up in my house right now. Sometimes it's annoying when your phone or laptop connects to the wrong router, but I imagine that if you travel outside the range of your 5G by going to your garage, it would search then connect to your 2.4G, but when you came back to the house, you would have to tell it to connect back to the 5G, or leave it. Not a big deal. What you have is two SSID's but in reality only one network. Im rambleing, but my second router is on my 1st routers network with a reserved IP address. My first router is set to only assign IP addresses from .20 to .50. My second router assignes from .51 to .80 so there is no conflict. absolutly the same network, but different SSIDs. If it were me, I would only save the SSID of the things you never take out of your house to the 5G network. And if you have a laptop or something you can save both SSIDs to it so you can choose whitch router to connect to. But everything on the network can talk to eachother reguarrdless of which router it connects to. All in the way you choose to configer it.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

We're those cables the only additional paths?

If by additional paths, you mean other electrical connections between the buildings, no, there were multiple other electrical paths.

 

[zbang]

Well.... a router sends (routes) packets between different networks which are often carried on different media. It happens that most home "routers" are also dhcp servers, but you can turn that off in most of them. Turn off most of the features and the box becomes an access point; basically an almost-transparent bridge. The confusion comes that for most people, the box-at-the-end-of-the-cable is a combination of IP router, semi-firewall, Network Address Translation system, DHCP server, and WiFi access point.

Oh, and it's possible for multiple properly-implemented DHCP servers to coexist on one IP network. Or for multiple access points to share the SSID and password.

(My home network has a Ubiquity EdgeRouter router/firewall talking to two ISPs, a separate unix box that does DNS and DHCP and used to have the mail server, another box that brings in the WiFi (a "router" with almost everything turned off), and some unmanaged layer-2 switches.)

 

[SceneryDriver]

This was the cost of the fiber network card that goes into the PLC rack. The PLC network configuration standard for the brand of PLC does not permit those other types of connections.

Curious about this. Ethernet fiber-to-copper media converters are transparent to the end devices. Were you using Ethernet, or CAT cable for other COMs protocols?


SceneryDriver

 

[petersonra]

Curious about this. Ethernet fiber-to-copper media converters are transparent to the end devices. Were you using Ethernet, or CAT cable for other COMs protocols?


SceneryDriver

It is not unusual for people to be fooled by OEMs into thinking they need to spend a lot of money when it is not really necessary. A $200 unmanaged switch on each end with a fiber port is quite adequate.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It is not unusual for people to be fooled by OEMs into thinking they need to spend a lot of money when it is not really necessary. A $200 unmanaged switch on each end with a fiber port is quite adequate.

It becomes a support issue and if you do not install the network to their standards you don't get the tech support you need if there is a network issue...they simply tell you to call back when you have a network setup that complies with their standards.
Not a risk that client wanted to take.

 

[gene6]

if you do not install the network to their standards you don't get the tech support you need if there is a network issue..

Yeah always be really nice to tech support, even if you can't understand them.
And if your a ^%#% head to your 21 year old female apprentice you don't get tech support either.
Don't ask how I know.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yeah always be really nice to tech support, even if you can't understand them.
And if your a ^%#% head to your 21 year old female apprentice you don't get tech support either.
Don't ask how I know.

That has never been an issue with the company that supplied this equipment...you talk directly with an application engineer in the US.

 

[hbiss]

You can use multiple routers, I have two routers set up in my house right now. Sometimes it's annoying when your phone or laptop connects to the wrong router

I think you are confusing router with a WiFi. That's probably because consumer routers often also provide WiFi. They are actually two separate functions. So, a router shouldn't be used to provide WiFi unless it's the DHCP server (first in line after the cable modem or however you get your internet). You can't have multiple routers daisy-chained, each handing out their own IPs. If you can turn off DHCP on a WiFi router then you can use it. But you would probably be better off with a WiFi access point that could be expanded.

-Hal

 

[ggunn]

I think you are confusing router with a WiFi. That's probably because consumer routers often also provide WiFi. They are actually two separate functions. So, a router shouldn't be used to provide WiFi unless it's the DHCP server (first in line after the cable modem or however you get your internet). You can't have multiple routers daisy-chained, each handing out their own IPs. If you can turn off DHCP on a WiFi router then you can use it. But you would probably be better off with a WiFi access point that could be expanded.

-Hal

I am by no means an expert in such matters, but for a while I had a modem/router combo that belonged to my ISP and my own router running my wireless and wired LAN connected to one of the ethernet ports on the combo. I just plugged it in and it worked.

 

[tthh]

modem - something that is taking the incoming signal and turning it into Ethernet. Now, that signal may be DOCIS over CATV cable or DSL over old telephone cable. Typically when there is fiber, that will be a separately supplied fiber modem, typically called an ONT.

router - this term is somewhat loosely applied, but in this case it means that the device is able to do NAT and DHCP. The service provider is only giving out one IP address and your house needs more than one because you have several computers and TV's and other devices. So there is the concept of NAT which allows a private IP network of several devices behind one public IP address. DHCP is seperate from this and is the function that dynamically hands out the private IP address to new devices when they boot up. You could, theoretically, hard code private IP addresses in all your home devices and not use DHCP at all, but that is more work. Often times the NAT and DHCP functions are tied to the same configuration entry because they are rarely used separately. You don't want DHCP behind DHCP and you don't want NAT behind NAT -- often referred to as double-NAT.

access point (can also be called the WiFi part of a WiFi router) - the is the WiFi function within the device.

These devices exist:
- modem
- modem + router
- modem + router + access point
- router + access point (commonly called a WiFi router)
- access point (less common in consumer space, but most routers can turn off NAT and DHCP to become this, possibly with caveats)

One finer point on access points. Mixing and matching consumer type routers and turning off NAT and DHCP in a downstream device to get wider WiFi coverage won't necessarily be as clean as you would expect. Ideally, you want all the devices to cooperate and hand off the WiFi signal from one access point to another seamlessly rather than having the access point fighting each other or existing as seperate WiFi SSIDs. This is where the consumer space mesh products come in or going to something more sophisticated like Ubiquiti or Cisco.