8
5
SOLUTION: I have found RJ45 connectors that are compatible with Cat7 and can also be used with the standard cat 5/6 crimpers. These do not provide speeds higher than would be expected of Cat 6a, and are a bit more expensive, but at least I can use the cable without paying 30€ a time for TERA connectors or having to bodge the whole thing by stripping the internal wires. See the link below.
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
I have a lot of Cat 7 shielded cable and I want to make sure I am using the most advantageous connectors to get the most out of the cable since I now have a top of the line D-Link switch that supports Cat 7. Literally ALL of the connectors I have viewed online say they are for cat 6 or earlier. I understand that I will need a specific cat 7 crimper for the cable itself because it is slightly thicker than previous ethernet cables and that is not a problem. The issue for me is that I cannot tell from all the reading online whether I can use a standard RJ45 cable ending or whether I need to get something more specific for cat 7.
Here is a brief example of some of the relatively useless information I have found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_11801#CAT7
Can anyone give me a definitive answer: Can I just get standard RJ45 connectors or do I need to search for something more specific? I see indications that I need 8P8C connectors, but I thought these were the same as ARJ45; and at any rate, I cannot find 8P8C connectors that do not also describe themselves as ARJ45...
Clearly I do not know what I am doing. Answers please!
UPDATE: Ok, I have used the standard RJ45 terminators and these have allowed me to use the cable although, as predicted, I have not seen a clearly higher performance in cat 7 over cat 6/6a. I considered using the TERA terminators, as described below, but I agree these look too big to be of much practical use and I am sure I will end up breaking the cables and connection points, so I gave up on this idea.
One interesting thing to note is that, although this cat 7 cable is noticeably thicker than previous ethernet cables, the cat 6 crimpers DO NOT seem to have much trouble stripping the internal wires (necessary to make the fatter wires fit standard RJ45s) and connecting them up with the RJ45s. A bit of a bodge that has caused me some problems, but practice has made it a reliable solution.
However, the RJ45 endings I have bought come with rubber seals that are supposed to slip over the cable and thus protect the cable terminators. Since these are rubbery plastic they can ONLY JUST, with much force applied, be stretched to fit over the slightly thicker Cat 7 cable.
After all this effort, I wish I had bought Cat 6a cable instead.
1Do you mean ARJ45? An AR45 is a gun. – Michael Frank – 2016-06-19T22:16:02.827
1For Class F cabling to function correctly, the shield must be electrically contiguous from device to device. This also requires the devices to support the grounding of the shield. Most, but not all, business-grade equipment does, but often consumer-grade equipment, including most NICs, does not. You should check that you haven't wasted a lot of money on cabling; the shielding will not function if you connect to a non-compliant NIC. (Category 7 doesn't really exist, since ANSI/TIA/EIA, which certifies cable categories, refuses to certify Category 7, while the ISO/IEC has certified Class F.) – Ron Maupin – 2016-06-20T02:11:58.440
You need what's called GG45, an extended version of the RJ45 connector that adds a few extra contacts and additional shielding to support higher speeds. – bwDraco – 2016-06-20T07:08:33.997
@MichaelFrank Lol! I have changed it now. – Matthew – 2016-06-20T20:26:42.203
If you address the question to Damit, that user will be the only one who will answer. – fixer1234 – 2016-10-04T20:05:41.233
@fixer1234 That's a good one! I will leave it as is unless moderators demand it changed since I think it quite well captures the frustration inherent in making the mistake of buying in Cat7 shielded cable before fully understanding it. – Matthew – 2016-10-05T09:42:00.963
I understand the frustration but there is a little spelling mistake in the question (it is better to use Dammit instead of Damit) - see https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/79282/dammit-vs-damnit
– JanVdA – 2018-07-20T07:50:15.417