... I'm thinking, surely the cable and connector combination should be
what limits the result to Fast Ethernet, 100Mbps, not what crimper was used? Perhaps he means that the connectors supplied are not fully populated, and so reduced to 100Mbps?
What are others' thoughts?
Please excuse the Linux/Windows cross-post, this is a general question
about networking gear.
I'm thinking of buying a CAT-Crimper, and was looking at this model ...
<https://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-Ethernet-Crimping-Connectors-Stripper/dp/B0DLNV7KDB>
... for which the reviews are mostly very good, but I was a little taken aback by this one ...
<https://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/B0DLNV7KDB/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_paging_btm_next_3?pageNumber=3>
Michael Howe
2.0 out of 5 stars Not suitable for gigabit WiFi.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 17 March 2025
Model: CHZHHYF Verified Purchase
Product worked as intended, but I have gigabit internet and all the
cables I made are limited to 100mbps.
... I'm thinking, surely the cable and connector combination should be
what limits the result to Fast Ethernet, 100Mbps, not what crimper was
used? Perhaps he means that the connectors supplied are not fully populated, and so reduced to 100Mbps?
What are others' thoughts?
... but if he thinks he's wiring "gigabit wifi", who knows?
Please excuse the Linux/Windows cross-post, this is a general question
about networking gear.
I'm thinking of buying a CAT-Crimper, and was looking at this model ...
<https://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-Ethernet-Crimping-Connectors-Stripper/dp/B0DLNV7KDB>
... for which the reviews are mostly very good, but I was a little taken aback by this one ...
Michael Howe
2.0 out of 5 stars Not suitable for gigabit WiFi.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 17 March 2025
Model: CHZHHYF Verified Purchase
Product worked as intended, but I have gigabit internet and all the
cables I made are limited to 100mbps.
... I'm thinking, surely the cable and connector combination should be
what limits the result to Fast Ethernet, 100Mbps, not what crimper was
used? Perhaps he means that the connectors supplied are not fully populated, and so reduced to 100Mbps?
What are others' thoughts?
In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Please excuse the Linux/Windows cross-post, this is a general question
about networking gear.
I'm thinking of buying a CAT-Crimper, and was looking at this model ...
<https://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-Ethernet-Crimping-Connectors-Stripper/dp/B0DLNV7KDB>
... for which the reviews are mostly very good, but I was a little taken
aback by this one ...
I bought that one. Well, one of the many lookalike listings of what's presumably the same Chinese product - I can't find the exact listing but it looks identical. It was advertised as a cat6 kit.
It's ok, but I had a lot of difficulty getting cat6 solid core outdoor
cables to feed through it. It seems there's two problems. In the middle of the cable is a cross-shaped structural plastic filler (keeps the pairs more separated). First problem is that doesn't fit into the rear of the RJ45 plugs they supplied very well. One of my cat6s is double wrapped and gel filled - I concluded that I need to strip off the first wrapping to have any chance of getting it into the plug, but most of them I've just used the
wires for strain relief which isn't great.
Second problem is that I could only fit 7 wires into the plug before running out of space. Seems like the insulation is slightly thicker and that doesn't leave enough space for the last wire. What I ended up doing was stripping all the wires to bare copper and feeding the stripped wires through. Then going through each wire in turn and pulling it so the insulation pulled through the connector. By pulling each one a little at a time I could eventually work it to get all 8 wires through.
At least I could do that - I have a stash of older non-passthrough
connectors in both regular and 'load bar' type and there was no chance I could get the wires in position with those. I killed at least a dozen trying.
When I finally got everything in position and crimped it, they all worked first time, which was nice.
Michael Howe
2.0 out of 5 stars Not suitable for gigabit WiFi.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 17 March 2025
Model: CHZHHYF Verified Purchase
Product worked as intended, but I have gigabit internet and all the
cables I made are limited to 100mbps.
... I'm thinking, surely the cable and connector combination should be
what limits the result to Fast Ethernet, 100Mbps, not what crimper was
used? Perhaps he means that the connectors supplied are not fully
populated, and so reduced to 100Mbps?
Probably he didn't make the terminations correctly and so was down a pair, which would have resulted in dropping back to 100Mbps. The kit doesn't come with a tester to confirm the connections are good (some other kits do; I already had one).
Noted.What are others' thoughts?
Use patch panel sockets with proper punchdown terminals and a punchdown tool (Krone or 110, depending on what you sockets need), avoid using RJ45 plugs
at all costs, and buy ready made patch leads where you can. Punchdown is so so much easier.
Please excuse the Linux/Windows cross-post, this is a general question
about networking gear.
I'm thinking of buying a CAT-Crimper, and was looking at this model ...
[...]
... for which the reviews are mostly very good, but I was a little taken aback by this one ...
Michael Howe
2.0 out of 5 stars Not suitable for gigabit WiFi.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 17 March 2025
Model: CHZHHYF Verified Purchase
Product worked as intended, but I have gigabit internet and all the
cables I made are limited to 100mbps.
[...]
On 2025-05-28, Java Jive wrote:
Please excuse the Linux/Windows cross-post, this is a general question about networking gear.
I'm thinking of buying a CAT-Crimper, and was looking at this model ...
Honestly, just purchasing ready-made patch cables is probably the better idea, unless you've got a specific reason to be terminating your own
male cables.
On 2025-05-28, Java Jive wrote:
Please excuse the Linux/Windows cross-post, this is a general question
about networking gear.
I'm thinking of buying a CAT-Crimper, and was looking at this model ...
Honestly, just purchasing ready-made patch cables is probably the better idea, unless you've got a specific reason to be terminating your own
male cables.
Thanks for *ALL* the replies, all of which I've read, but mostly they
don't require an individual response ...
On 2025-05-29 09:33, Theo wrote:
In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Please excuse the Linux/Windows cross-post, this is a general question
about networking gear.
I'm thinking of buying a CAT-Crimper, and was looking at this model ...
<https://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-Ethernet-Crimping-Connectors-Stripper/dp/B0DLNV7KDB>
... for which the reviews are mostly very good, but I was a little taken >> aback by this one ...
I bought that one. Well, one of the many lookalike listings of what's presumably the same Chinese product - I can't find the exact listing but it looks identical. It was advertised as a cat6 kit.
It's ok, but I had a lot of difficulty getting cat6 solid core outdoor cables to feed through it. It seems there's two problems. In the middle of
the cable is a cross-shaped structural plastic filler (keeps the pairs more separated). First problem is that doesn't fit into the rear of the RJ45 plugs they supplied very well. One of my cat6s is double wrapped and gel filled - I concluded that I need to strip off the first wrapping to have any
chance of getting it into the plug, but most of them I've just used the wires for strain relief which isn't great.
Videos for another I examined show the demonstrator cutting out the
central filler:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Solsop-Kit-Ethernet-Crimper-Crimping/dp/B09WR31VK2
Second problem is that I could only fit 7 wires into the plug before running
out of space. Seems like the insulation is slightly thicker and that doesn't
leave enough space for the last wire. What I ended up doing was stripping all the wires to bare copper and feeding the stripped wires through. Then going through each wire in turn and pulling it so the insulation pulled through the connector. By pulling each one a little at a time I could eventually work it to get all 8 wires through.
Yes, since posting my OP I've come across quite a few similar tales.
With almost all of the crimpers, choosing to view critical reviews will bring up a raft of them - it's a negatively biased sample to be sure,
so you have to make allowances for that, but I find it useful to do this
to get a sense of "What's the worst that can happen?!"
As you suggest, and as suggested by other reviewers, there seems to be a problem getting more recent CAT standard cables to fit into the
connectors supplied in the kits, because the individual strands are
somewhat thicker than perhaps the connectors were designed for.
Many variants of the kits have testers, including one from the same supplier, so probably wisest for me to go for one of those:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-Ethernet-Crimping-Connectors-Stripper/dp/B08L4CHL7V
In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
As you suggest, and as suggested by other reviewers, there seems to be a
problem getting more recent CAT standard cables to fit into the
connectors supplied in the kits, because the individual strands are
somewhat thicker than perhaps the connectors were designed for.
It seems like you need to buy RJ45 connectors to match the cable
construction you have, but they aren't widely available to take different thicknesses.
In a pro install you'd never be putting plugs on 'structured wiring', it would all be punchdown sockets and patch leads. But there's certain use cases where you need to wire a structured cable directly into a device. Although even in structured wiring there can be a socket on the ceiling for an access point with a short patch cable, rather than hanging the cable out of the ceiling and into the access point.
As I understand, the two halves of those testers slide apart and you canMany variants of the kits have testers, including one from the same
supplier, so probably wisest for me to go for one of those:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-Ethernet-Crimping-Connectors-Stripper/dp/B08L4CHL7V
Either that or an RJ45 socket at each end and a multimeter. But the tester makes it quicker.
(can't speak for that tester - you need to test for open circuits, shorts
and mis-wired pairs and I can't tell if it does that. In particular if it's structured wiring you need to be able to test from one end because you can't see both ends at the same time as the cable runs through the building - unless you can run a long patch cable back to the start)
In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Thanks for *ALL* the replies, all of which I've read, but mostly
they don't require an individual response ...
On 2025-05-29 09:33, Theo wrote:
question
In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Please excuse the Linux/Windows cross-post, this is a general
model ...about networking gear.
I'm thinking of buying a CAT-Crimper, and was looking at this
<https://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-Ethernet-Crimping-Connectors-Strip
per/dp/B0DLNV7KDB>
little taken
... for which the reviews are mostly very good, but I was a
what'saback by this one ...
I bought that one. Well, one of the many lookalike listings of
presumably the same Chinese product - I can't find the exactlisting but it
looks identical. It was advertised as a cat6 kit.outdoor
It's ok, but I had a lot of difficulty getting cat6 solid core
cables to feed through it. It seems there's two problems. In themiddle of
the cable is a cross-shaped structural plastic filler (keeps thepairs more
separated). First problem is that doesn't fit into the rear ofthe RJ45
plugs they supplied very well. One of my cat6s is double wrappedand gel
filled - I concluded that I need to strip off the first wrappingto have any
chance of getting it into the plug, but most of them I've justused the
wires for strain relief which isn't great.
Videos for another I examined show the demonstrator cutting out the
central filler:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Solsop-Kit-Ethernet-Crimper-Crimping/dp/B09
WR31VK2
Yes, you cut the filler down to where you've stripped off the outer
sheath. But you need to poke the whole outer sheath including filler
into the back of the RJ45 for strain relief, and it was impossible to
do that with the supplied plugs. Different RJ45s have different cable
entry gaps at the back, and it seems that different variations of
cat5e/cat6 indoor/outdoor have different thicknesses of gap. These
are probably ok for regular cat5e and maybe indoor cat6 but didn't fit outdoor cat6.
Second problem is that I could only fit 7 wires into the plugbefore running
out of space. Seems like the insulation is slightly thicker andthat doesn't
leave enough space for the last wire. What I ended up doing wasstripping
all the wires to bare copper and feeding the stripped wiresthrough. Then
going through each wire in turn and pulling it so the insulationpulled
through the connector. By pulling each one a little at a time Icould
eventually work it to get all 8 wires through.
Yes, since posting my OP I've come across quite a few similar tales.
With almost all of the crimpers, choosing to view critical reviews
will bring up a raft of them - it's a negatively biased sample to
be sure, so you have to make allowances for that, but I find it
useful to do this to get a sense of "What's the worst that can
happen?!"
As you suggest, and as suggested by other reviewers, there seems to
be a problem getting more recent CAT standard cables to fit into the
connectors supplied in the kits, because the individual strands are
somewhat thicker than perhaps the connectors were designed for.
It seems like you need to buy RJ45 connectors to match the cable construction you have, but they aren't widely available to take
different thicknesses.
In a pro install you'd never be putting plugs on 'structured wiring',
it would all be punchdown sockets and patch leads. But there's
certain use cases where you need to wire a structured cable directly
into a device. Although even in structured wiring there can be a
socket on the ceiling for an access point with a short patch cable,
rather than hanging the cable out of the ceiling and into the access
point.
Many variants of the kits have testers, including one from the same
supplier, so probably wisest for me to go for one of those:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-Ethernet-Crimping-Connectors-Stripp
er/dp/B08L4CHL7V
Either that or an RJ45 socket at each end and a multimeter. But the
tester makes it quicker.
(can't speak for that tester - you need to test for open circuits,
shorts and mis-wired pairs and I can't tell if it does that. In
particular if it's structured wiring you need to be able to test from
one end because you can't see both ends at the same time as the cable
runs through the building - unless you can run a long patch cable back
to the start)
Theo
On 2025-05-29 17:34, Theo wrote:
Either that or an RJ45 socket at each end and a multimeter. But the tester makes it quicker.
(can't speak for that tester - you need to test for open circuits, shorts and mis-wired pairs and I can't tell if it does that. In particular if it'sAs I understand, the two halves of those testers slide apart and you can
structured wiring you need to be able to test from one end because you can't
see both ends at the same time as the cable runs through the building - unless you can run a long patch cable back to the start)
put one half at each end to perform the test.
In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
As I understand, the two halves of those testers slide apart and you can
put one half at each end to perform the test.
Do you need to see both ends to run the test, or is one sufficient?
I saw a video showing that a green light on each part scans down the numbers 1 to 8 then 'G'. But I'm not sure if you are testing that the lights match at both ends, or if a fault is only shown at the end that detects it.
(eg if you had open circuit at one end and a short at the other, what would it tell you?)
In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-29 17:34, Theo wrote:
Either that or an RJ45 socket at each end and a multimeter. But the testerAs I understand, the two halves of those testers slide apart and you can
makes it quicker.
(can't speak for that tester - you need to test for open circuits, shorts >> > and mis-wired pairs and I can't tell if it does that. In particular if it's
structured wiring you need to be able to test from one end because you can't
see both ends at the same time as the cable runs through the building -
unless you can run a long patch cable back to the start)
put one half at each end to perform the test.
Do you need to see both ends to run the test, or is one sufficient?
I saw a video showing that a green light on each part scans down the numbers 1 to 8 then 'G'. But I'm not sure if you are testing that the lights match at both ends, or if a fault is only shown at the end that detects it.
(eg if you had open circuit at one end and a short at the other, what would it tell you?)
On 2025-05-29 19:48, Theo wrote:
In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
As I understand, the two halves of those testers slide apart and you can >>> put one half at each end to perform the test.
Do you need to see both ends to run the test, or is one sufficient?
I saw a video showing that a green light on each part scans down the numbers >> 1 to 8 then 'G'. But I'm not sure if you are testing that the lights match >> at both ends, or if a fault is only shown at the end that detects it.
(eg if you had open circuit at one end and a short at the other, what would >> it tell you?)
Well, I've not used one, so I'm guessing based solely on electronic logic. Hopefully, if I'm wrong, someone will correct me.
1) If the cable was miswired by crossing two cables, then I'd expect the lights at one end, most probably the remote end, to light in the wrong order.
2) If you have a short at one end, I'd expect two lights to be on at the same time at least at that end, probably at both.
3) If you have an open circuit, I'd expect the corresponding light at one end or the other to fail to light.
But let's see if anyone can confirm what actually happens based on actual experience.
Yes, you need both ends in order to complete the test circuit; but you
can look at them independently. Verification is basically that on the
REMOTE end (smaller unit without the battery), the LEDs count in the
correct order (1,2,...8,G). LEDs on the main end (the one with the
battery) -- at least in the testers I have here -- are just wired in
parallel to the conductor under test, and don't actually provide any
insight into the conductor state.
Note that these LED testers will only find *electrical* faults (crossed conductors, missed terminations, etc.); but the testers can't confirm if
the run is actually "good". For example, if it got crushed in a bend somewhere, electrically the cable is OK, but the excessive bend radius
may cause problems at gbit speeds.
On Thu, 5/29/2025 6:02 PM, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-05-29 19:48, Theo wrote:
In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
As I understand, the two halves of those testers slide apart and you can >>>> put one half at each end to perform the test.
Do you need to see both ends to run the test, or is one sufficient?
I saw a video showing that a green light on each part scans down the numbers
1 to 8 then 'G'. But I'm not sure if you are testing that the lights match
at both ends, or if a fault is only shown at the end that detects it.
(eg if you had open circuit at one end and a short at the other, what would >>> it tell you?)
Well, I've not used one, so I'm guessing based solely on electronic logic. Hopefully, if I'm wrong, someone will correct me.
1) If the cable was miswired by crossing two cables, then I'd expect the lights at one end, most probably the remote end, to light in the wrong order.
2) If you have a short at one end, I'd expect two lights to be on at the same time at least at that end, probably at both.
3) If you have an open circuit, I'd expect the corresponding light at one end or the other to fail to light.
But let's see if anyone can confirm what actually happens based on actual experience.
A GbE chip, has MDI/MDIX and the two ends of the cable
automatically negotiate the highest rate they can manage.
I presume in this case, that starts with selecting
GbE full duplex 1gbit mode and trying to make that work.
If the four pairs do not operate, for whatever reason,
the negotiation will eventually drop to 100BT and the
two pairs on 1,2,3,6 . I don't think there is a reason
for the GbE end to move to 10BT 1,2,3,6, unless some kind
of response from the other end, indicates that is all the
hardware can manage.
A second kind of diagnostic, is a Marvell Ethernet Chip,
has a TDR (Time Domain Reflectometer), it shoots a pulse
down each pair. If the end is shorted or open, that causes
a reflection off the spot, and the Marvell
logic block measures the pulse polarity and arrival time
(possibly to the nearest 1 nanosecond). If your cable
was shorted in the middle and not at the crimp, the TDR
method tells you roughly where to look for crushing damage.
I'm not aware of any NIC PHY having the ability to work
at the "I've got eight wires level" and figure out
what is connected to what, as a means of vetting home made
cables with the wires shoved in the wrong holes (like
an attempt to make a "rolled" cable). For that matter,
the MDI/MDIX on the Gbe, is even capable of dealing
with "straight" wiring pattern or "rolled" wiring
pattern. Either cable works. Whereas with 100BT NICs
as endpoints, if you use the wrong cable, it fails
to function, you switch cable types (remove that yellow
cable from the broadband modem box), and the interface
starts to work.
In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-29 17:34, Theo wrote:
Either that or an RJ45 socket at each end and a multimeter. But the tester >>> makes it quicker.As I understand, the two halves of those testers slide apart and you can
(can't speak for that tester - you need to test for open circuits, shorts >>> and mis-wired pairs and I can't tell if it does that. In particular if it's
structured wiring you need to be able to test from one end because you can't
see both ends at the same time as the cable runs through the building -
unless you can run a long patch cable back to the start)
put one half at each end to perform the test.
Do you need to see both ends to run the test, or is one sufficient?
On 2025-05-29 19:48, Theo wrote:
In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
As I understand, the two halves of those testers slide apart and you can >>> put one half at each end to perform the test.
Do you need to see both ends to run the test, or is one sufficient?
I saw a video showing that a green light on each part scans down the numbers >> 1 to 8 then 'G'. But I'm not sure if you are testing that the lights match >> at both ends, or if a fault is only shown at the end that detects it.
(eg if you had open circuit at one end and a short at the other, what would >> it tell you?)
Well, I've not used one, so I'm guessing based solely on electronic
logic. Hopefully, if I'm wrong, someone will correct me.
1) If the cable was miswired by crossing two cables, then I'd expect
the lights at one end, most probably the remote end, to light in the
wrong order.
2) If you have a short at one end, I'd expect two lights to be on at
the same time at least at that end, probably at both.
3) If you have an open circuit, I'd expect the corresponding light at
one end or the other to fail to light.
On 2025-05-29, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-29 19:48, Theo wrote:
In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
As I understand, the two halves of those testers slide apart and you can >>>> put one half at each end to perform the test.
Do you need to see both ends to run the test, or is one sufficient?
I saw a video showing that a green light on each part scans down the numbers
1 to 8 then 'G'. But I'm not sure if you are testing that the lights match >>> at both ends, or if a fault is only shown at the end that detects it.
(eg if you had open circuit at one end and a short at the other, what would >>> it tell you?)
Well, I've not used one, so I'm guessing based solely on electronic
logic. Hopefully, if I'm wrong, someone will correct me.
The scanning light testers give indication only that ther terminals
are connected in the correctr order, that catch more than 99% of all miswired connectors.... because usually you get one pair right.
1) If the cable was miswired by crossing two cables, then I'd expect
the lights at one end, most probably the remote end, to light in the
wrong order.
Exactly that happens. If the numbers "555" and "4017" mean anything to
you you can probably guess how these devices are built.
2) If you have a short at one end, I'd expect two lights to be on at
the same time at least at that end, probably at both.
Both ends show both lights at reduced brightness
3) If you have an open circuit, I'd expect the corresponding light at
one end or the other to fail to light.
Yeah the unpowered end gets no light, the powered end gets a slightly brighter light. (assuming that the receiver is attached at the other
end)
On 2025-07-01 10:10, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2025-05-29, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-29 19:48, Theo wrote:
In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
As I understand, the two halves of those testers slide apart and
you can
put one half at each end to perform the test.
Do you need to see both ends to run the test, or is one sufficient?
I saw a video showing that a green light on each part scans down the
numbers
1 to 8 then 'G'. But I'm not sure if you are testing that the
lights match
at both ends, or if a fault is only shown at the end that detects it.
(eg if you had open circuit at one end and a short at the other,
what would
it tell you?)
Well, I've not used one, so I'm guessing based solely on electronic
logic. Hopefully, if I'm wrong, someone will correct me.
The scanning light testers give indication only that ther terminals
are connected in the correctr order, that catch more than 99% of all
miswired connectors.... because usually you get one pair right.
1) If the cable was miswired by crossing two cables, then I'd expect
the lights at one end, most probably the remote end, to light in the
wrong order.
Exactly that happens. If the numbers "555" and "4017" mean anything to
you you can probably guess how these devices are built.
2) If you have a short at one end, I'd expect two lights to be on at
the same time at least at that end, probably at both.
Both ends show both lights at reduced brightness
3) If you have an open circuit, I'd expect the corresponding light at
one end or the other to fail to light.
Yeah the unpowered end gets no light, the powered end gets a slightly
brighter light. (assuming that the receiver is attached at the other
end)
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
| Sysop: | Luis Silva |
|---|---|
| Location: | Lisbon |
| Users: | 764 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 141:03:43 |
| Calls: | 331 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 46,971 |
| Messages: | 13,087 |