Talk:ISO/IEC 11801

I think that 100 Mhz cable doen't correspond to the 5e cathegory - it would be better to refer it to the 5 cathegory... and talking about 5e cathegory - you shuold remind that this type of the cable has 125 Mhz working frequency. I could be wrong. Check this please.

CAT5e is still 100MHz[Cat5 x Cat5E]. FastEthernet uses MLT-3 to scale down frequency, so even using 4B5B (which pumps 100Mbps up to 125Msymbols), the real working frequency is 31.25MHz.[100BASE-TX] Zekkerj (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Strange external link

What is the reason of keeping here the external link to Russian standard ГОСТ Р53246-2008?--Sergei (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ISO/IEC 11801. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lanster.com/pub/files/file/okablowanie_normy/Guide_ISO_11801_2nd_Amendment1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ISO/IEC 11801. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108232139/http://www.rdm.com/en/co/media/40gbase-t-a-quantum-leap-forward-for-data-centers.aspx to http://www.rdm.com/en/co/media/40gbase-t-a-quantum-leap-forward-for-data-centers.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ISO/IEC 11801. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222065152/http://live.psu.edu/story/27265 to http://live.psu.edu/story/27265
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090803100630/http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34854/113 to http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34854/113/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Refactor wording on official-ness

AFAICT:

1. The entire slate of Cat 7, Cat 7a, and Cat 8.2 ISO proposals were largely rejected by the market as Cat 6a and Cat 8.1 filled their niche at a lower cost.
2. The "Category 8.2" from the ISO proposal was cut and the TIA/EIA adopted "Category 8.1" as vanilla Category 8.

This article mentions that the standard was published by the ISO but never ratified TIA/EIA. I'm not sure what lingo to use here, as I'm unfamiliar with which agency has official authority over the Category X standards. While they exist as ISO standards, I think the article needs to reframe them as failed proposals or at least legacy technology .

ツ indolering ^(talk) 21:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Cat8 Cable Length?

"Category 8 was ratified by the TR43 working group under ANSI/TIA 568-C.2-1. It is defined up to 2000 MHz and only for distances from 30 m to 36 m depending on the patch cords used." So this wording does not make sense, since it implies that the Cat8 cables can only come in lengths between 30m to 36m, cannot be longer or shorter than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandrey89 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new sections on the bottom. Cat 8 was created specifically for 25GBASE-T/40GBASE-T Ethernet and is limited to 30 m for that purpose, see IEEE 802.3 clause 113.7.2. Alternative cabling and lengths are allowed as long as they meet the channel requirements. --Zac67 (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Zac67, The way it's phrased now, suggests the cable length must be between 30m and 36m, it cannot be 29m, or 3m etc. Also, why is the maximum a range, it should be a single number. I understand that if it meets the transmission requirements then it can be called a CAT8 but since the intention is to convey guidance of the specification, you can't just wave your hand around and be ambiguous. --kandrey89 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I have rephrased the sentence with "up to". --Zac67 (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Category 7 (band) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)