Pork pie....

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Someone in work claims that they have two computers which must have 2 IP addresses from a single port router which is fed to a double outlet RJ-45 box.
I said both computers will be able to access the internet but not at the same time.
The person says otherwise.....

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I think he is mixed up slightly. Maybe he thinks is modem is his single port router. And the double port RJ45 is his actual router. Thus he can acces the internet on both at the same time
What do you think Boyce

 

no, he claims his router (a single port netgear) has one rj-45 plug on it which connects to a double outlet RJ-45 plate via cat 5 cabling. He claims both computers can surf at the same time....

 

If the router acts as a DHCP server then I can't see why it wouldn't work.

The double outlet RJ-45 box will be acting like a hub.

 

oh. But i thought the RJ45 outlet would have seperate inputs for either outlet....

 

It depends on what you mean by outlet. Something that is attached to the wall usually has two cables wired into it, but I have used splitters before that basically, well, split a single input.

As they are both using the same cable bandwidth usage could cause problems if both are being used at once.

 

ok, thanks for the input Si
In this instance i can't see how it would work either way because the outlet isn't a hub....

 

As far as I know you cannot split an Ethernet RJ45 cable into two.

Splitters *do* exist, but they are for ISDN S-Bus, which *is* a bus system. 10base-t or 100base-t is *not* a bus.

As there are normaly 2 unused pairs in the normal ethernet cable you can use a different type of splitter/combiner to put two connections down one cable, but you need the mirror device at the other end. This only works for 10base and 100base. 1000base uses all 4 pairs.

So, on the face of it, what he is claiming isn't possible. But the language used suggests he isn't accurately describing things anyway!

Harry.

 

Harry,

thanks for the reply. I can't see how it would work either. He pointed to an outlet like the ones we have on our office wall. These must be a socket pure and simple. The reason i know this because each RJ45 goes to a different network

So either he is talking through his behind or there is a hub between the Netgear output and twin wall socket!

 

Just so that you know, this is the sort of thing that I was reffering too.

 

thanks Si. In what type of situation would these cable come in to play ops

 

Well, I've only used on once, when I needed to add an extra workstation into a location which only had a single wired point.

Worked ok, but I'm not sure as to how much traffic ended up going over the link.

 

From my research (googling) I have come to the conclusion that it is possible. There are eight wires in a CAT5 cable but only four are used. TX (transmit) + and TX - and RX (receive) + and RX -

So, for the cable run, you can get away with one cable but you would need a splitter at both ends. The end that is near the computers would be split and then plug into each NIC. The end of the cable near the switch/hub would also be split and plug into two *separate* ports.

More info here...

http://www.duxcw.com/yabbse/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=5233

And here..

http://www.duxcw.com/digest/Reviews/Network/ats/index.html

 

This is what I was refering to in this:

The snag is that it depends on a special splitter at *both* ends, and in most cases these splitters are rare!

Harry.

 

Ah yes, now that I have read it over a few times it makes much more sense