atcomsystems.ca/forum Forums Wiring - Telecom Carriers - Trunks & Services Outside Plant OSP Construction Extending Cat5E cables underground 150'

We need to run three CAT5E data runs underground building to building. The customer is providing the 4" PVC. Already have a handle on how to do the voice cabling part, but this is from the network switch to their extended workstations, printers, etc.

Need to maintain CAT5E performance.

Found some near-end termination hardware from Porta Systems for CAT5E here - https://www.portasystems.com/protection/Network/CatIndex.htm

There are three voltages to choose from?? Which voltage is correct?

As for the CAT5E itself, found some direct bury rated cable without the icky pic inside. Network rack is only 25' inside the building, so probably will install the protection near the data rack vs on a wall right where it enters, then extend.

All these seem to be labeled "NETWORK" on one side and "PC" on the other. Is protection required on the far end entry also? Will that weaken the link?

They don't want to mess with fiber for such a short run and only three PCs.

Your link doesn't go anywhere. But you'd use the lowest voltage rating for your network. So see what the network is rated than get the lowest rated protector that will support it. Yes protect both ends, you want the protection to blow not your equipment. Just protecting one end in any situation does you no good.

Fixed link. Also, it looks like there are many options out there for protection, including these -

https://www.itwlinx.com/products/Category.asp?id=42

Funny how we can go years and years and not have to be knowledgeable about this stuff, then wham.

A friend of mine suggested to just put the near end LAN connections on a cheap switch. That way when it blows, no big deal. I call my friend Cliff, as in Cliff Claven. He is an expert on everything.

Here is your corrected link :

https://www.portasystems.com/Protection/Network/CatIndex.htm

I like the layout of just using a Cat5 block protector vs up to six 'modules' - but wow - they are about $500 for each side.

by the time your done doing it properly your going to be in a competitive price range with fiber

If it where me that's what I would have sold them

Will offer that also. Those protectors come up at about 30% discount on Ebay though. It is a very small structure so they won't be expanding in that area.

The ITW stuff is nice because you can use the 16v fuses for voice, 235v for data, on the same block. Or in other words, set it up for five 4-Pair PC connections and four 1-pair voice connections (four digital or analog sets, faxes). The voice fuses are optional, reasonably priced. With digital phones running out there I'd have to do something for those connections anyway, even with fiber.

Why don't you just run one cable out there and put a switch at the other end?

-Hal

That would be the most cost effective solution if they're on a budget, for sure.

x2

IF, IF, IF they ever want more than the three data connections, or IF they ever want speeds outside the specified "CAT Ve" range, then you would never have an issue with bandwidth/speed choke. It would also help with the grounding/protection issue.

Then you could run a phone feeder separate and protect/ground it.

The IT guy does not want more than one secondary switch. The main building, ties to another via fiber and then a switch, then onto this small structure.

I remember when I took the CTP courses there was something about that also. No switch<>switch<>switch. Broadcast floods or whatever they call it. One central switch out one level to multiple small switches OK, just not twice. Not sure if that is BS, but heard it a few times.

NC, a number of years ago, it was standard practice to use "The Rule of Three".

No more than three switches between the server and the computer, no more than 300 feet of structured cable from the switch to the computer, no more than three connections in the fiber, and no more than three x-connects for voice.

Seemed to work, minimal problems, and easy design.

Your data guy is correct, less is better, but common sense has to play a factor there.

My $.02.

For a switch yes, you want to limit it to 3 hops or "Virtual Switch Length". Any longer and you run into a chance of having propagation delays when the switches start to get loaded. This is thanks to the store-and-forward architecture most switches use. Feel free to goo that if you really want to know.

If you need to span more then 3 switches you would need to start getting involved in subnetting your network and setting up routers. Incase this sounds familiar it's because that's how the internet works. A typical Ethernet packet (or frame for you circuit guys) typically only has a maximum TTL (Time To Live, not Transistor-Transistor Logic) of 128-ms. That's 1/8 of a second to get from point A to point Z by going through everything in between. The more congestion a switch has, the longer it can take to get through. If you get someone on the far-end of that span downloading music and watching videos and whatever else they aren't supposed to do it can cause major nightmares.

Since the distance isn't a problem I am with everyone else and suggest just pulling a multi-strand fiber between buildings and terminating them on a patch panel. Then you can just plug transceivers in or home-run to your switch inside the building.

Do the buildings have a clear line-of-sight? If so, why not just put in a wireless bridge?

Phones - digital.