[gentoo-user] Re: soliciting a DHCP lease / carrier lost

[Kai Krakow]

Am Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:28:23 -0600
schrieb thelma@×××××××××××.com:

> On 04/04/2017 10:02 AM, Mick wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 Apr 2017 09:12:16 thelma@×××××××××××.com wrote:
> >> On 04/04/2017 01:26 AM, Mick wrote:
>  [...]
> >
>  [...]
> >
> > This may merely indicate they have been wired correctly (pin to
> > pin).  Unless your tester is 'intelligent' to also measure things
> > like attenuation, DC loop resistance and cross talk and it can also
> > calculate attenuation to cross talk ratio, you cannot be sure your
> > cable will perform to specification.
> >
> >
>  [...]
> >>
> >> Shouldn't CAT5 be able to handle 100m run?
> >> Am not sure I understand, "keep their runs separate from mains
> >> cables"?
> >
> > Cat5e should be able to perform as specified in lengths up to 100m,
> > when correctly terminated and without high cross talk.  If your
> > ethernet cable installation is running parallel to mains power and
> > in close physical proximity, it may pick up noise, which will
> > reduce its performance.  It is better where ethernet and mains runs
> > come together to cross them at 90 degrees angles to minimise the
> > effect of interference.
> >
> > Either way, you have lost carrier errors.  Random google result on
> > causes of lost carrier errors, in case it helps:
> >
> > https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/9543606/what-causes-output-errors-ethernet-interface
>
> I have reconnected another cable and the unit in remote location
> works. Both cable have a good pinout but one is working and the other
> is not. Both cable are sunning inside wall (I presume same path).
> Without special tools/testing equipment it is hard to trace these
> problems.

You could try the problematic cable with only 100 MBit. If this works,
I'm pretty sure that some of the wires are broken or have incorrect
order. Keep in mind, tho, that the inverse assumption of such tests is
not true.

-- 
Regards,
Kai

Replies to list-only preferred.