RE: [802.3af] Category 6 cabling
100BASE-TX and 1000BASE-T were written such that the cabling infrastructure
must meet, at a minimum, the specification for UTP Cat 5 cabling. This
means that any cabling that exceeds the specification of Cat 5 cabling
should be conformant with the standard; therefore, there is no requirement
to specify operation over Cat 6 or 7 cabling unless they cannot provide
similar operation as can be achieved on Cat 5. If a specification for Cat 6
or 7 was required for .3af, that would most likely be considered beyond the
scope of the .3af.
Cheers,
Brad
Brad Booth
IEEE P802.3ae Editor-in-Chief
bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx>
-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:38 PM
To: McMillan, Paul; 'stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [802.3af] Category 6 cabling
Paul
I believe 100BASE TX is written to Category 5. The same I
believe is true
for GigE. Cat 6 and 7 aren't written into either spec... so
I don't know if
the IEEE has a charter to address this (them?) directly, but
is likely
deemed 'out of scope' since a non-conformant infrastructure
is being used
in either case...
I could be wrong here though
At 09:57 AM 5/15/2002 -0700, McMillan, Paul wrote:
>
>Hello All,
>
>As a follow on question that I made earlier, Has anyone
been faced with
>potential warranty issues from cabling manufacturers?
Specifically,
>manufacturers referencing channel to channel certification
being voided if
>power is applied over the cabling infrastructure. This is
specific to a
>category 6 wiring implementation. This leads to a more
obvious question
>which is everything I have read on the 802.3af
specification references
>category 5 cabling. I assume the category 6 or 7 cabling is
addressed.
>
> Regards
>Paul McMillan
>Solutions Architect
>CCDA
>Siemens Enterprise Networks
>Penn-Jersey Region
>RNET 590-3527
>Outside (610)-660-3527
>
>> This message and any attachments are solely for the use
of intended
>> recipients. They may contain confidential information to
Siemens. If you
>> are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you received
>> this email in error, and that any review, dissemination,
distribution or
>> copying of this email and any attachment is strictly
prohibited. If you
>> have received this email in error, please contact the
sender and delete
>> the message and any attachment from your system. Thank
you for your
>> cooperation.
>
>
*************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights
than they are
willing to allow for others"
James M. Polk
Senior Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO
Cisco Systems
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike
Richardson, TX 75082 USA
w) 972.813.5208
f) 972.813.5280
www.cisco.com