Re: [802.3af] Category 6 cabling
James, I believe that Categories 6 and 7 both meet all Category 5 cable
requirements (except for the physical shape of the Category 7 connector).
Therefore, any technology that can run over Category 5 (and 5E) cabling,
should also run over Categories 6 and 7 cabling.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "McMillan, Paul" <Paul.Mcmillan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:38 PM
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