Discussion:
Leaving network cables unplugged
(too old to reply)
r***@optonline.net
2014-04-26 02:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Maybe a stupid question, but I seem to remember years ago when they sold a thing
you plugged onto the end of an usused cable, maybe a "null" something or other.

If I run a network cable from my router to a TV stand where I will soon be
hooking up a component, but I don't have to component just yet, will that cable
end just hanging out there doing nothing cause me any downgrade in my router
performance?

I only ask because I have time tomorrow to run the cable and thought I'd do so
while I can, in anticipation of the component arriving sometime next week. But I
don't want to have problems with the router or my wireless until then.

Thanks.
UCLAN
2014-04-26 03:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@optonline.net
Maybe a stupid question, but I seem to remember years ago when they sold a thing
you plugged onto the end of an usused cable, maybe a "null" something or other.
If I run a network cable from my router to a TV stand where I will soon be
hooking up a component, but I don't have to component just yet, will that cable
end just hanging out there doing nothing cause me any downgrade in my router
performance?
I only ask because I have time tomorrow to run the cable and thought I'd do so
while I can, in anticipation of the component arriving sometime next week. But I
don't want to have problems with the router or my wireless until then.
Depends on the cable. But why can't you run the cable and leave BOTH ends
disconnected?
r***@optonline.net
2014-04-26 17:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by UCLAN
Post by r***@optonline.net
Maybe a stupid question, but I seem to remember years ago when they sold a thing
you plugged onto the end of an usused cable, maybe a "null" something or other.
If I run a network cable from my router to a TV stand where I will soon be
hooking up a component, but I don't have to component just yet, will that cable
end just hanging out there doing nothing cause me any downgrade in my router
performance?
I only ask because I have time tomorrow to run the cable and thought I'd do so
while I can, in anticipation of the component arriving sometime next week. But I
don't want to have problems with the router or my wireless until then.
Depends on the cable. But why can't you run the cable and leave BOTH ends
disconnected?
I suppose I could but it's the location of the router, high up on a desktop
hutch that's difficult to get to. Actually, just running the cable through an
existing hole in the wall where other cables run, is the easy part. I was just
curious.
Gene E. Bloch
2014-04-26 18:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@optonline.net
Maybe a stupid question, but I seem to remember years ago when they sold a thing
you plugged onto the end of an usused cable, maybe a "null" something or other.
If I run a network cable from my router to a TV stand where I will soon be
hooking up a component, but I don't have to component just yet, will that cable
end just hanging out there doing nothing cause me any downgrade in my router
performance?
I only ask because I have time tomorrow to run the cable and thought I'd do so
while I can, in anticipation of the component arriving sometime next week. But I
don't want to have problems with the router or my wireless until then.
Thanks.
Ethernet routers, switches, and ports seem to realize when there's
nothing on the cable, so they don't do anything on it. Or so it seems to
me.

In other words, I've never heard of putting a terminator on an Ethernet
cable. In fact, I've never even heard of an Ethernet terminator (which
is the word you're looking for, according to Arnold).
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
r***@optonline.net
2014-04-26 21:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene E. Bloch
Post by r***@optonline.net
Maybe a stupid question, but I seem to remember years ago when they sold a thing
you plugged onto the end of an usused cable, maybe a "null" something or other.
If I run a network cable from my router to a TV stand where I will soon be
hooking up a component, but I don't have to component just yet, will that cable
end just hanging out there doing nothing cause me any downgrade in my router
performance?
I only ask because I have time tomorrow to run the cable and thought I'd do so
while I can, in anticipation of the component arriving sometime next week. But I
don't want to have problems with the router or my wireless until then.
Thanks.
Ethernet routers, switches, and ports seem to realize when there's
nothing on the cable, so they don't do anything on it. Or so it seems to
me.
In other words, I've never heard of putting a terminator on an Ethernet
cable. In fact, I've never even heard of an Ethernet terminator (which
is the word you're looking for, according to Arnold).
Okay, thanks for that info. I should be good for now, but no doubt, "I'll be
back!"
Gene E. Bloch
2014-04-27 22:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@optonline.net
Post by Gene E. Bloch
Post by r***@optonline.net
Maybe a stupid question, but I seem to remember years ago when they sold a thing
you plugged onto the end of an usused cable, maybe a "null" something or other.
If I run a network cable from my router to a TV stand where I will soon be
hooking up a component, but I don't have to component just yet, will that cable
end just hanging out there doing nothing cause me any downgrade in my router
performance?
I only ask because I have time tomorrow to run the cable and thought I'd do so
while I can, in anticipation of the component arriving sometime next week. But I
don't want to have problems with the router or my wireless until then.
Thanks.
Ethernet routers, switches, and ports seem to realize when there's
nothing on the cable, so they don't do anything on it. Or so it seems to
me.
In other words, I've never heard of putting a terminator on an Ethernet
cable. In fact, I've never even heard of an Ethernet terminator (which
is the word you're looking for, according to Arnold).
Okay, thanks for that info. I should be good for now, but no doubt, "I'll be
back!"
And I'm already back :-)

I should have added that I've left Ethernet cables with one end
unconnected with no sign of any ill effects.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
RickMerrill
2014-04-29 19:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene E. Bloch
Post by r***@optonline.net
Maybe a stupid question, but I seem to remember years ago when they sold a thing
you plugged onto the end of an usused cable, maybe a "null" something or other.
If I run a network cable from my router to a TV stand where I will soon be
hooking up a component, but I don't have to component just yet, will that cable
end just hanging out there doing nothing cause me any downgrade in my router
performance?
I only ask because I have time tomorrow to run the cable and thought I'd do so
while I can, in anticipation of the component arriving sometime next week. But I
don't want to have problems with the router or my wireless until then.
Thanks.
Ethernet routers, switches, and ports seem to realize when there's
nothing on the cable, so they don't do anything on it. Or so it seems to
me.
In other words, I've never heard of putting a terminator on an Ethernet
cable. In fact, I've never even heard of an Ethernet terminator (which
is the word you're looking for, according to Arnold).
Old "thicknet" ethernet had to be terminated at every node.

New "twisted pair" do not need to be terminated.

Plus, you do not have to worry about the electrons leaking out!
Gene E. Bloch
2014-04-29 22:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by RickMerrill
Post by Gene E. Bloch
Post by r***@optonline.net
Maybe a stupid question, but I seem to remember years ago when they sold a thing
you plugged onto the end of an usused cable, maybe a "null" something or other.
If I run a network cable from my router to a TV stand where I will soon be
hooking up a component, but I don't have to component just yet, will that cable
end just hanging out there doing nothing cause me any downgrade in my router
performance?
I only ask because I have time tomorrow to run the cable and thought I'd do so
while I can, in anticipation of the component arriving sometime next week. But I
don't want to have problems with the router or my wireless until then.
Thanks.
Ethernet routers, switches, and ports seem to realize when there's
nothing on the cable, so they don't do anything on it. Or so it seems to
me.
In other words, I've never heard of putting a terminator on an Ethernet
cable. In fact, I've never even heard of an Ethernet terminator (which
is the word you're looking for, according to Arnold).
Old "thicknet" ethernet had to be terminated at every node.
New "twisted pair" do not need to be terminated.
Plus, you do not have to worry about the electrons leaking out!
We *were* talking about the current technology...

My first experience with Ethernet was coax. I got to a new job and saw
that my Ethernet was connected to a length of coax with a splitter at
the end. I didn't like that, so I removed the cable and connected the
splitter directly to my computer and thereby managed to bring the whole
LAN down.

They were both annoyed and amused at me :-)
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
RickMerrill
2014-05-15 23:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene E. Bloch
Post by RickMerrill
Post by Gene E. Bloch
Post by r***@optonline.net
Maybe a stupid question, but I seem to remember years ago when they sold a thing
you plugged onto the end of an usused cable, maybe a "null" something or other.
If I run a network cable from my router to a TV stand where I will soon be
hooking up a component, but I don't have to component just yet, will that cable
end just hanging out there doing nothing cause me any downgrade in my router
performance?
I only ask because I have time tomorrow to run the cable and thought I'd do so
while I can, in anticipation of the component arriving sometime next week. But I
don't want to have problems with the router or my wireless until then.
Thanks.
Ethernet routers, switches, and ports seem to realize when there's
nothing on the cable, so they don't do anything on it. Or so it seems to
me.
In other words, I've never heard of putting a terminator on an Ethernet
cable. In fact, I've never even heard of an Ethernet terminator (which
is the word you're looking for, according to Arnold).
Old "thicknet" ethernet had to be terminated at every node.
New "twisted pair" do not need to be terminated.
Plus, you do not have to worry about the electrons leaking out!
We *were* talking about the current technology...
My first experience with Ethernet was coax. I got to a new job and saw
that my Ethernet was connected to a length of coax with a splitter at
the end. I didn't like that, so I removed the cable and connected the
splitter directly to my computer and thereby managed to bring the whole
LAN down.
They were both annoyed and amused at me :-)
I love war stories like that!
Alan
2014-05-01 01:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by RickMerrill
Post by Gene E. Bloch
In other words, I've never heard of putting a terminator on an Ethernet
cable. In fact, I've never even heard of an Ethernet terminator (which
is the word you're looking for, according to Arnold).
Old "thicknet" ethernet had to be terminated at every node.
New "twisted pair" do not need to be terminated.
Plus, you do not have to worry about the electrons leaking out!
Actually "thicknet" (10base5) and "thinnet" (10base2) needed to be terminated
only at the ends. Some hubs driving thinnet had one end terminated internally
but I don't recall any such examples in thicknet days.

Twisted pair (10baseT, 100baseTX, etc.) terminate in equipment at each end.

Alan
RickMerrill
2014-05-15 23:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by RickMerrill
Post by Gene E. Bloch
In other words, I've never heard of putting a terminator on an Ethernet
cable. In fact, I've never even heard of an Ethernet terminator (which
is the word you're looking for, according to Arnold).
Old "thicknet" ethernet had to be terminated at every node.
New "twisted pair" do not need to be terminated.
Plus, you do not have to worry about the electrons leaking out!
Actually "thicknet" (10base5) and "thinnet" (10base2) needed to be terminated
only at the ends. Some hubs driving thinnet had one end terminated internally
but I don't recall any such examples in thicknet days.
Twisted pair (10baseT, 100baseTX, etc.) terminate in equipment at each end.
Alan
75 ohm terminators weren't they?

twisted pair can be left in the air ... at least until someone steps on 'em.
Alan
2014-05-16 05:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by RickMerrill
Post by Alan
Post by RickMerrill
Post by Gene E. Bloch
In other words, I've never heard of putting a terminator on an Ethernet
cable. In fact, I've never even heard of an Ethernet terminator (which
is the word you're looking for, according to Arnold).
Old "thicknet" ethernet had to be terminated at every node.
New "twisted pair" do not need to be terminated.
Plus, you do not have to worry about the electrons leaking out!
Actually "thicknet" (10base5) and "thinnet" (10base2) needed to be terminated
only at the ends. Some hubs driving thinnet had one end terminated internally
but I don't recall any such examples in thicknet days.
Twisted pair (10baseT, 100baseTX, etc.) terminate in equipment at each end.
Alan
75 ohm terminators weren't they?
twisted pair can be left in the air ... at least until someone steps on 'em.
50 ohm. As I recall, the original 3 megabit ethernet from Xerox was 75 ohm,
but the successors were 50 ohm.

Alan
Tim
2014-05-16 17:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by RickMerrill
Post by Alan
Post by RickMerrill
Post by Gene E. Bloch
In other words, I've never heard of putting a terminator on an
Ethernet cable. In fact, I've never even heard of an Ethernet
terminator (which is the word you're looking for, according to
Arnold).
Old "thicknet" ethernet had to be terminated at every node.
New "twisted pair" do not need to be terminated.
Plus, you do not have to worry about the electrons leaking out!
Actually "thicknet" (10base5) and "thinnet" (10base2) needed to be terminated
only at the ends. Some hubs driving thinnet had one end terminated
internally but I don't recall any such examples in thicknet days.
Twisted pair (10baseT, 100baseTX, etc.) terminate in equipment at each end.
Alan
75 ohm terminators weren't they?
twisted pair can be left in the air ... at least until someone steps on 'em.
50 ohm. As I recall, the original 3 megabit ethernet from Xerox was 75 ohm,
but the successors were 50 ohm.
Alan
10base2 was for all intents and purposes one long piece of coax strung
between all of the systems, with a terminator at each end. Wherever one
wanted to connect to the cable, a simple T connector was inserted, and a
drop of the same cable was run to the system being connected. As the
previous poster found out, one MUST have that drop cable connected
between the T and the network card, or dire things happened to the
electrical balance of the coax and very little if any data would get
through. If the cable was disconnected from the network card, it had to
be terminated, or the cable removed from the T connector and a terminator
place there instead. The whole system was very sensitive to impedence
mismatch, which would cause either loss of signal or 'ghoast packets', as
the electrical signal would hit the end of the unterminated cable and, in
effect, reflect of the end of the wire and cause interference with the
valid packet being transmitted. The resulting 'collision' would cause all
of the stations wishing to transmit to back off for their random time and
them retransmit. The same thing would happen to those packets, with the
end result that no data would get through.
Gene E. Bloch
2014-05-16 17:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
10base2 was for all intents and purposes one long piece of coax strung
between all of the systems, with a terminator at each end. Wherever one
wanted to connect to the cable, a simple T connector was inserted, and a
drop of the same cable was run to the system being connected. As the
previous poster found out, one MUST have that drop cable connected
between the T and the network card, or dire things happened to the
electrical balance of the coax and very little if any data would get
through. If the cable was disconnected from the network card, it had to
be terminated, or the cable removed from the T connector and a terminator
place there instead. The whole system was very sensitive to impedence
mismatch, which would cause either loss of signal or 'ghoast packets', as
the electrical signal would hit the end of the unterminated cable and, in
effect, reflect of the end of the wire and cause interference with the
valid packet being transmitted. The resulting 'collision' would cause all
of the stations wishing to transmit to back off for their random time and
them retransmit. The same thing would happen to those packets, with the
end result that no data would get through.
Thanks, that was clear.

Although I learned quickly that what I had done was not a good idea, I
don't recall hearing or reading such a clear explanation of it before.

Obviously I had a vague idea, but I never really looked into it.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
Tim
2014-05-17 11:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene E. Bloch
Post by Tim
10base2 was for all intents and purposes one long piece of coax
strung between all of the systems, with a terminator at each end.
Wherever one wanted to connect to the cable, a simple T connector was
inserted, and a drop of the same cable was run to the system being
connected. As the previous poster found out, one MUST have that drop
cable connected between the T and the network card, or dire things
happened to the electrical balance of the coax and very little if any
data would get through. If the cable was disconnected from the
network card, it had to be terminated, or the cable removed from the
T connector and a terminator place there instead. The whole system
was very sensitive to impedence mismatch, which would cause either
loss of signal or 'ghoast packets', as the electrical signal would
hit the end of the unterminated cable and, in effect, reflect of the
end of the wire and cause interference with the valid packet being
transmitted. The resulting 'collision' would cause all of the
stations wishing to transmit to back off for their random time and
them retransmit. The same thing would happen to those packets, with
the end result that no data would get through.
Thanks, that was clear.
Although I learned quickly that what I had done was not a good idea, I
don't recall hearing or reading such a clear explanation of it before.
Obviously I had a vague idea, but I never really looked into it.
Your case was a little bit different. The NIC (Network Interface Card)
was designed so that it would, in effect, 'suck in' any electrical signal
that appeared at it's input so that there would be no reflection due to
impedence mismatch. As long as the coaxial drop cable from the T
connector was in place, this worked great. If the T connector was
connected directly to the NIC, the NIC would 'suck in' enough of the
signal from the main cable that there would be little if any left to
propagate past the connector. In effect, breaking the single LAN into two
at that point. If the sending and receiving stations were both on the
same side of the station in question, they could communicate. But no
traffic would get past the connection in question. Made for some good
troubleshooting problems once in a while.
Alan
2014-05-17 23:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Gene E. Bloch
Post by Tim
10base2 was for all intents and purposes one long piece of coax
strung between all of the systems, with a terminator at each end.
Wherever one wanted to connect to the cable, a simple T connector was
inserted, and a drop of the same cable was run to the system being
connected. As the previous poster found out, one MUST have that drop
cable connected between the T and the network card, or dire things
happened to the electrical balance of the coax and very little if any
data would get through. If the cable was disconnected from the
network card, it had to be terminated, or the cable removed from the
T connector and a terminator place there instead. The whole system
was very sensitive to impedance mismatch, which would cause either
loss of signal or 'ghost packets', as the electrical signal would
hit the end of the unterminated cable and, in effect, reflect of the
end of the wire and cause interference with the valid packet being
transmitted. The resulting 'collision' would cause all of the
stations wishing to transmit to back off for their random time and
them retransmit. The same thing would happen to those packets, with
the end result that no data would get through.
Thanks, that was clear.
Although I learned quickly that what I had done was not a good idea, I
don't recall hearing or reading such a clear explanation of it before.
Obviously I had a vague idea, but I never really looked into it.
Your case was a little bit different. The NIC (Network Interface Card)
was designed so that it would, in effect, 'suck in' any electrical signal
that appeared at it's input so that there would be no reflection due to
impedance mismatch. As long as the coaxial drop cable from the T
connector was in place, this worked great. If the T connector was
connected directly to the NIC, the NIC would 'suck in' enough of the
signal from the main cable that there would be little if any left to
propagate past the connector. In effect, breaking the single LAN into two
at that point. If the sending and receiving stations were both on the
same side of the station in question, they could communicate. But no
traffic would get past the connection in question. Made for some good
troubleshooting problems once in a while.
Not quite.

The Ethernet cable was indeed a long coaxial cable, terminated at each
end in its characteristic impedance (50 ohms). However, a connection to
that cable consisted of a T connector with the sides connected to the cable
in each direction, and the center connected directly to the transceiver.
There was only the shortest possible length of connection between the
transceiver and the electronics of the transceiver - the T connected
directly to the BNC connector on the transceiver without an intervening
coaxial cable..

Since the transceiver was tapped across the conductors of the coaxial
cable, it had to be a very high impedance when receiving, so it would
"suck" only the smallest amount of energy from the cable. Fortunately,
since it was a powered device, this was not generally a huge problem.

If there had been a coax tail from the T, the 50 ohm cable on any input
would have seen two 50 ohm loads in parallel on the other inputs, and
would have seen 25 ohms at that point, causing a mismatch that would have
reflected about 11 percent of the signal. That would have been bad.

Given that, many of the transceivers of the time were built with the T
built right into them. Look up the asante friendlynet adapter and you may
find pictures of both forms, one with a BNC connector on the end opposite
the cable, or the later version with two BNC connectors on opposite sides
near the far end from the cable (where the T function was built in).

There was a cable involved from the transceiver to the computer, but it
was a multi-conductor cable that carried the power and signals between the
computer and the transceiver.

Even a small amount of reflection at the connection point to the coaxial
cable would be a cause for problems, as there were typically several of
these on a single cable segment, and the cumulative effect of their
reflections at various points on the cable could cause the entire segment
to fail.

Alan
Tim
2014-05-18 04:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Tim
Post by Gene E. Bloch
Post by Tim
10base2 was for all intents and purposes one long piece of coax
strung between all of the systems, with a terminator at each end.
Wherever one wanted to connect to the cable, a simple T connector
was inserted, and a drop of the same cable was run to the system
being connected. As the previous poster found out, one MUST have
that drop cable connected between the T and the network card, or
dire things happened to the electrical balance of the coax and very
little if any data would get through. If the cable was disconnected
from the network card, it had to be terminated, or the cable
removed from the T connector and a terminator place there instead.
The whole system was very sensitive to impedance mismatch, which
would cause either loss of signal or 'ghost packets', as the
electrical signal would hit the end of the unterminated cable and,
in effect, reflect of the end of the wire and cause interference
with the valid packet being transmitted. The resulting 'collision'
would cause all of the stations wishing to transmit to back off for
their random time and them retransmit. The same thing would happen
to those packets, with the end result that no data would get
through.
Thanks, that was clear.
Although I learned quickly that what I had done was not a good idea,
I don't recall hearing or reading such a clear explanation of it
before.
Obviously I had a vague idea, but I never really looked into it.
Your case was a little bit different. The NIC (Network Interface Card)
was designed so that it would, in effect, 'suck in' any electrical
signal that appeared at it's input so that there would be no
reflection due to impedance mismatch. As long as the coaxial drop
cable from the T connector was in place, this worked great. If the T
connector was connected directly to the NIC, the NIC would 'suck in'
enough of the signal from the main cable that there would be little if
any left to propagate past the connector. In effect, breaking the
single LAN into two at that point. If the sending and receiving
stations were both on the same side of the station in question, they
could communicate. But no traffic would get past the connection in
question. Made for some good troubleshooting problems once in a while.
Not quite.
The Ethernet cable was indeed a long coaxial cable, terminated at each
end in its characteristic impedance (50 ohms). However, a connection
to that cable consisted of a T connector with the sides connected to
the cable in each direction, and the center connected directly to the
transceiver. There was only the shortest possible length of connection
between the transceiver and the electronics of the transceiver - the T
connected directly to the BNC connector on the transceiver without an
intervening coaxial cable..
Since the transceiver was tapped across the conductors of the coaxial
cable, it had to be a very high impedance when receiving, so it would
"suck" only the smallest amount of energy from the cable.
Fortunately, since it was a powered device, this was not generally a
huge problem.
If there had been a coax tail from the T, the 50 ohm cable on any input
would have seen two 50 ohm loads in parallel on the other inputs, and
would have seen 25 ohms at that point, causing a mismatch that would
have reflected about 11 percent of the signal. That would have been
bad.
Given that, many of the transceivers of the time were built with the T
built right into them. Look up the asante friendlynet adapter and you
may find pictures of both forms, one with a BNC connector on the end
opposite the cable, or the later version with two BNC connectors on
opposite sides near the far end from the cable (where the T function
was built in).
There was a cable involved from the transceiver to the computer, but it
was a multi-conductor cable that carried the power and signals between
the computer and the transceiver.
Even a small amount of reflection at the connection point to the coaxial
cable would be a cause for problems, as there were typically several
of these on a single cable segment, and the cumulative effect of their
reflections at various points on the cable could cause the entire
segment to fail.
Alan
You are right, I stand corrected. I actually did put a drop cable in the
first time I connected a workstation to the LAN, and learned that was not
'how it's done'. Now that you correct me, I remember having to find a
couple of 'barrel' connectors and some short lengths of coax to extend
the main cable to the back of the workstation so that the T connector
would reach to the NIC. At least it wasn't the old 10Base2 cable. There
you had to actually drill a hole in the cable at one of the hash marks
(and ONLY at the hash marks) to connect the transceiver, and then run the
transceiver drop cable to the workstation. I forget how far apart the
marks were - I want to say 15 feet. Anyone else remember? Network guys
have it easy these days. Just run some CAT6 or fiber from the closest
switch to the workstation, connect it up, and away we go! I alse remember
having to crimp my own CAT3 crossover cables to connect hubs together.
Remember having to calculate the longest end to end run? A 10BaseT lan
could be no longer than x feet end to end, and a hub counted as so many
feet, and you could only have no more than y hubs in any cable path.
Those were the good old days.

Les Cargill
2014-04-26 21:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@optonline.net
Maybe a stupid question, but I seem to remember years ago when they sold a thing
you plugged onto the end of an usused cable, maybe a "null" something or other.
If I run a network cable from my router to a TV stand where I will soon be
hooking up a component, but I don't have to component just yet, will that cable
end just hanging out there doing nothing cause me any downgrade in my router
performance?
No. The switch in your router (routers != switches) will fail the link
negotiation with the device that isn't there and turn the port off.

When you plug something in on the far end, it'll turn it back on with
no action on your part. Sweet, huh?
Post by r***@optonline.net
I only ask because I have time tomorrow to run the cable and thought I'd do so
while I can, in anticipation of the component arriving sometime next week. But I
don't want to have problems with the router or my wireless until then.
Thanks.
Run three instead of one if you can. Label furiously, color code,
etcetera...
--
Les Cargill
Mark F
2014-04-26 22:02:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:27:14 -0500, Les Cargill
Post by Les Cargill
Post by r***@optonline.net
Maybe a stupid question, but I seem to remember years ago when they sold a thing
you plugged onto the end of an usused cable, maybe a "null" something or other.
If I run a network cable from my router to a TV stand where I will soon be
hooking up a component, but I don't have to component just yet, will that cable
end just hanging out there doing nothing cause me any downgrade in my router
performance?
dust can get into things, so I usually put a "boot" over the ends
of cables and a blank plug in the unused router connections.

You can also connect two cables together with an inline Ethernet
Coupler.

I usually run cables in pairs so that I can do a "loopback" test
from the other end.
Post by Les Cargill
No. The switch in your router (routers != switches) will fail the link
negotiation with the device that isn't there and turn the port off.
When you plug something in on the far end, it'll turn it back on with
no action on your part. Sweet, huh?
Post by r***@optonline.net
I only ask because I have time tomorrow to run the cable and thought I'd do so
while I can, in anticipation of the component arriving sometime next week. But I
don't want to have problems with the router or my wireless until then.
Thanks.
Run three instead of one if you can. Label furiously, color code,
etcetera...
gumbydammit
2014-04-26 21:36:04 UTC
Permalink
In the old days of networking (ca. late 80's) the network used a loop of coax and each access point had to be terminated to minimize noise in the circuit. Then came the advent of differential serial networking where it was point-to-point connectivity and terminations were no longer necessary. We had the coax style network while in grad school and it was a pain because you couldn't readily move computers around.
Loading...