[Discuss] Future-proofing a house for networking -- what to run?

[grg-webvisible+blu at ai.mit.edu (grg)]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:52:36AM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> I know all that -- I was asking for what would be "beyond CAT6a".  It
> sounds like maybe fiber, but I think I've been convinced that I wont
> need it, at least not to each drop.

The literal answer is cat.8 for 40GBASE-T.
RJ45, backwards compatible with cat6a, cat6, cat5e, ...

> So...  My current thinking is 1 RG6 and 3 or 4 CAT6a, which leaves me 1

If you really want to be future-proof, run cat8 where you're planning cat6a
and use that backwards compatibility.

Future-proofing is always going to be the expensive option...


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 01:19:57PM -0400, Bill Ricker wrote:
> So the only truly future-proof solutions are
> (a) admit defeat, we'll have visible cables or stick-on cable-races
> again within 5 years of putting on the wallboard;

Possibly, and I agree with your point that at some point whatever you do
will become so obsolete that you'll install something different, but this
specific time frame of 5 years seems too short.  Do you really think you'll
be running a local-area data interface exceeding 40gbit in 5 years?

if you were future-proofing a decade ago you would have run cat6 and
plugged it into 10GBASE-T, which is still today pretty darn good - I'd
wager most of us aren't running 10gbit interfaces at home yet.  I'm
guessing cat6 will have something more like a 20-year or even 25-year
lifespan before obsolescence.


> Does Code there require _steel_ conduit for low-voltage DATA cables, or can
> you use certain plastics?
> (Plastics are nasty when it burns, but w/o power lines inside, fire is
> coming from
> outside; by the time the fire gets to it, it's pretty much over
> already. Allowed for plumbing, so why not for data?)

There's an idea: have the plumber install "drains" running from one junction
box to another ;)


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 01:00:46PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> > But with Cat6 throughout I can always add additional APs wherever I might
> > need them.  :)
> 
> I do believe that my suggestion, going wireless, is the one you
> "completely disagree" with.

What I understood Derek to be "completely disagree"ing with was going ONLY
wireless for the whole house, NO data wires in the house, as in "Wires for
data are the past".  I don't think he disagrees with having a wifi portion
of his network and even running many devices solely over it, further
evidenced by his reply which you quote here about adding APs in his house.
His question in this thread is specifically about the wired portion of his
network (such as the data wires going into each AP).


--grg