Talk:Ethernet crossover cable

message: Does anyone know about 10GBase-T? I can't find any references about making a cross-over cable for 10GBase-T or discussions about whether this work. If anyone can assist I think this is important to complete this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No special cross-over cable is required for 1GBase-T or 10GBase-T.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.30.196 (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I recall from my networking days that 10GBase-T was required to automatically do crossover where needed. So yes, it should definitely be added to this article. (The article already correctly notes that most but not all 1000Base-T implementations automatically do crossover where needed.) Greg (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

text: I've added the faster standards to the article. Note that from 1000BASE-T onwards, the pair matching in the PMA sublayer makes a crossover completely unnecessary. For these interfaces, the crossover function is still optional to 100BASE-TX and 10BASE-T modes but since there are both transmitters and receivers present on each pair anyway, there's just very few logic required. --Zac67 (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  10GBase-T 

message: This is mostly yanked from the old TIA-568A/B article, although it didn't fit very well there.  This could use some cleanup as it now lives alone. The first sentence could make a good introduction if it were simplified (without specific references to standards) and expanded to mention what a crossover cable is used for.
I've tried to do so. Other than that, article looks good from a wikification standpoint. Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! JubalHarshaw 19:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a lot of work 

message: Is there anything like a rollover cable? I stumbled across the term, and was surprised I haven't heard over it before. May be its worth an article, together with straight through cable me think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs) 09:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed, such a thing exists.  It is commonly used for telephony, where the wiring order is exactly reversed at the other end of the cable.  On the other hand, Ethernet patch cables use a straight-through scheme; if you place the connectors side-by-side, you'll see that the wire color sequence is the same at both ends. —QuicksilverT @ 01:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cisco web site has details. HTH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.165.26.128 (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true , there is something like a Rollover cable! Wiki link here in my Comment. That Wikipedia article however, really ought to have a diagram, drawing, photograph, showing the eight (8) wires (4 pairs total) "rolling-over," i.e. how it is different from a Straight through vs a Crossover Cable. Good question! From Peter a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollover cable? 

message: I believe the section about setting up a network connection shouldn't be here. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a user manual, only a source of information and reference.--Lenilucho 03:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really view it as a manual, as it lacks steps and directions. It just shows how the configuration looks for any generic crossover cable setup, and no more. Could it be re-written to be more "article-like"? I view this section as both a source of information and a reference. (Can you justify that it is not?) How else would you learn how to configure an ethernet crossover network? There is no better way to show this than to than to show an example. +mwtoews 14:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S., I do share your opinion with some other articles, such as Screenshot, or even worse where a programming language is involved with examples etc., which are hardly encyclopedia material. They're useful, but I have no clue where else they would be appropriate. +mwtoews 14:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't the job of an "encyclopedia" to provide information and knowledge?  If, (for example), I was writing an article on classes, class inheritance, or operator overloading in C++ or C#, it would be extremely germane to include code-based examples of what this means.  Otherwise, how do you get your point across?  Likewise, an article discussing painting, (as in art-painting, or even room-painting), or plastering a wall or ceiling, could effectively use pictures/photographs to make the explanation succinct and more easily understood in the context of the article. Jharris1993 04:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you referring to section "Networks created using crossover cables"? What section are you referring to? Logictheo 16:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am referring to that part. At the time when I wrote that, it looked much more like an instructions manual.--Leonardo Horovitz 00:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yea, maybe it could be improved, but (as noted), this is not a text on networking.  As I saw it, this was a very simplified overview on how to make two computers talk and that it was succinct, relevant, and germane as applied.  At the very least, some newbie looking to tie two computers together and coming to this page to find out about crossover cables is put on notice that simply plugging in the cable is not enough.  IMHO, a more fully developed explanation on how to do this, default gateways, possible modifications to the HOST/HOSTS file(s) and/or routing tables is way beyond the scope of this article. Jharris1993 04:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is any of that needed? A default gateway (or anything beyond a basic routing table) is only for getting outside the local subnet. For the 2 machines to communicate with each other, they just send packets to the IP address of the other (with correct MAC addresses etc. and send the packets down the cable). The only OS i know of which is affected by lack of default gateways is Linux, but that's a problem with linux. — Lee Carré 16:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair case (I think, but I don't have the expertise to verify it), and I'll suggest that you may either reword it or remove it (although I'm sure some readers might struggle what to use as a default gateway, since I think you need it for any TCP/IP network setup). +mt 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the "manual" part (networks created using crossover cables) 

message: One amature picture of cable ends is enough.  Users find it a lot more useful to have a detailed pinout for their reference. --[Unsigned topic, unknown author]
:I reworked the pictures a bit and added a wiring diagram. Not sure if this is better but web are all "amateur" here. W Nowicki (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's an improvement. The previous gallery section was a confusing mess. +mt 00:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  -  - I say in the Networking world, the more pictures the better, but they could be smaller, lower-resolution, simply drawings rather than photographs (bandwidth and page loading speed concerns  on). From Peter, a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pictures 

message: I have made some edits that are (hopefully) viewed as an improvement on the original.
# I added references to both the T568-A and T568-B "standards" to the pinout tables.
# I copied (and modified) the original table, showing it as a four-pair crossover, since the newer network types need all four pairs crossed.
# I added explanatory comments about the T568-A/B wiring formats, since in my experience this has been a source of confusion. (They really are interchangeable, you just need to use the same format at each end.)
# I also inserted comments between the two pinout tables explaning that there may be situations where the "older" style may be preferable - and that some equipment can be fussy about which pairs are crossed, and which are not.
# I broke out the "Cable Pinouts" and "Other Technologies into separate sections to make things clearer.
Comments:
Thanks to whomever added the pictures and the original table.  They really help liven up the page and make the information much more easily grasped.
Regarding the comment about "Wikipedia not being a 'user manual' but merely a 'source of information'..."  Where do you/we draw the line?  I came to Wikipedia, as a source of information, and in this case the "how-to" kind of information is often what the visitor wants.
In my own case, I came here looking for information about how to make the cable and found the tabular form for the pinout (now pinouts) most instructive.
Constructive criticism is welcomed.  Flame-mail to /dev/null. ( :-) )
Jharris1993 04:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refresh / Update 

message: Can we please add a reference to MDI (medium dependent interface, if I'm correct), to explain this abbreviation, and to provide more information?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.28.115 (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MDI 

message: For the computer newbie's here, this article is like trying to read the Rosetta Stone while being illiterate of ANY language. The section entitled "Overview" is complete gibberish. Example:
"The 10BASE-T and 100BASE-TX Ethernet standards use one wire pair for transmission in each direction. The Tx+ line from each device connects to the tip conductor and the Tx- line is connected to the ring. This requires that the transmit pair of each device be connected to the receive pair of the device on the other end. When a terminal device is connected to a switch or hub, this crossover is done internally in the switch or hub. A standard straight through cable is used for this purpose where each pin of the connector on one end is connected to the corresponding pin on the other connector."
What I got from that is this: "Stick one end in the ethernet plug on computer A and then stick the other end into Computer B's ethernet plug". However, I'm probably wrong. Why? Because I have no idea what a "10BASE-T and 100BASE-TX" is/are, or what a "Tx+" or "Tx-" are. Hell, looking at this, for all I know I need a special Ethernet Cable, not like the one I'm using to connect my PC into the wall in my room. Anyone care to make this article a little more reader-friendly? Please? Paladin Hammer (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, a little re-wording/explanation might help. 

message: [I am bringing this up here because I took the time to find out that it has been in the article over two years (minus this) and I see it was discussed above]
Can we please get rid of this section?  My problem isn't that it is possibly manual-ish, but that it is not related to crossover cables.  The two computers might not be using Internet Protocol, and if they are, networks not connected (or even just not visible) to the Internet/outside world can use any addresses they want, since there couldn't be any address conflicts or things.  As someone who has been through the Cisco Networking Academy, I should know what I'm talking about.  Thanks. Jason McHuff (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point regarding the complexities in setting up a network is taken. This article should really be about the cable configuration and related hardware. I've moved the section to the best available Wikibook (there may be a better one). I put a reference to it in the "See also" here, since it is useful for anyone who hasn't been through the Cisco Networking Academy and needs to set-up a simple two-computer network.+mt 08:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  And I do understand that many, if not most, people in the would don't know about networking or the details of directly connecting two computers.  I've actually had problems myself, but they've been hardware issues.  Jason McHuff (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It was actually added here but that tag should still be removed. I removed the same tag by the same editor on other articles already. He tagged all the articles which had pinouts or colour codes in tables, including non-Ethernet articles such as Modular connector and I think Registered jack. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Networks created..." redux 

message: "The Tx+ line from each device connects to the tip conductor, and the Tx- line is connected to the ring."
These terms are, to me, totally inappropriate when discussing modular connectors - I assume they come from TRS jack technology but I've never seen ethernet over TRS connectors.
If someone doesn't educate me shortly, I'll rewrite this paragraph.
62.49.27.35 (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tip and Ring 

message: I removed this section from the Crossover cable article. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in this article. I suggest it needs some attention first, however --Kvng (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POE concerns

message: In partial response to some of the above comments: isn't this topic of historical interest now? It has been 12 years since Auto MDI/X has been introduced. Does anyone still make equipment that needs crossover cables? In particular the mention of 1000BASE-T needing special cables is quite odd, since all 1000BASE-T PHYs that I know of have auto sense so wil work with either sex cable. Is there low-end stuff that still does not implement auto sense? I do see the cables still available, but as long as one end has a modern PHY then this should all be in past tense. W Nowicki (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've evaluated a lot of gigabit Ethernet equipment over the past two years and have not come across any 1000BASE-T port that does not support auto MDI/X. On the other hand the 802.3 standard specifically does not require it so someone could build one if they were so inclined. --Kvng (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: I received two new images on OTRS today, but I'm not sure if they are so good to be published on the article... Hopefully someone here can make that decision for me:  and . Edoderoo (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the first one is a screenshot of my diagram :File:Ethernet MDI crossover.svg with a caption in some other language (Dutch?). The second is a color coded version of the same thing, plus a connector pair drawn in. I was going to add color to mine, but wanted to show the pair-twisting and make the "cross over" explicit. The first should probably be deleted; will comment on commons. The seond picture looks a bit busy to me, but would welcome other points of view, since I am an engineer not an artist. W Nowicki (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Hard to offer any additional input; the pictures have disappeared. --Kvng (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Oops, sorry, should have followed up. When I pointed out the obvious resemblance (a bug in mine for example showed up in the first one) the OTRS uploader immediately deleted them. I did not think they caused any harm and would have prefered to keep them around while discussion ensued, but probably OTRS needs to err on the side of being careful. I did add a touch of color to mine, although it is a bit tough since the color is actually on the wires and not the pins. But this is not a "how to" anyway just trying to give an overview of the concept. Probably more drab articles could use diagrams too, but they are tedious to make. W Nowicki (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two new images 

message: The edit on 07:35, 1 August 2011 88.222.25.105 seems to have introduced incorrect information about T568B cables. I lack the time and/or experience to roll the following 10+ updates into a revert; can anyone help out? 204.57.81.7 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, unexplained (no edit comments) changes done by anonymous users are more dubious. Indeed, it looks like they swapped the polarity (+/-) of the wires within the pair as well as crossed the pairs. I do not have the specific standard documents handy, but seriously doubt that is what was done. I reverted both the edits; one swapped the polarity ont he "B" gigabit crossover, and the other on the "A". Would like to have someone else verify please to make sure which is correct. This of course really needs a source we can verify against! W Nowicki (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect information on 1000TX

message: I tested in article purpose cable (Gigabit T568A ctossover (1000BASE-T)) 
Testing on:
Hardware 1
PC1 with Realtec PCI GBE Family controler
PC2 with Intel 82566DM Gigabit controller (onboard)
Hardware 2
Four diverts IBM xSeries servers
The connector on the right shows:
GreenWhite - Green - OrangeWhite - Blue - BlueWhite - Orange - BrownWhite - Brown
The connector on the left shows:
OrangeWhite - Orange - GreenWhite - BrownWhite - Brown - Green - Blue - BlueWhite
Hardware 1 and Hardware 2 was detected 100Mbps nework and work at that speed.
When cable was modified:
The connector on the right shows:
GreenWhite - Green - OrangeWhite - Blue - BlueWhite - Orange - BrownWhite - Brown
The connector on the left shows:
OrangeWhite - Orange - GreenWhite - Brown - BrownWhite - Green - BlueWhite - Blue
Hardware 1 and Hardware 2 was detected 1000Mbps nework and work at that speed.
Where is error?
Sory for my English  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.25.105 (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you are asking. It looks like you are swapping the polarity of the pairs on pins 4-5 and pins 7-8. If it works for you, fine, I could certainly believe that some polarity swaps might work (depends on other details). But that would be what we call "original research", and we are supposed to base Wikipedia on verifiable sources. I checked a few sources and they agree polarity should not be crossed. My guess is in your first experiment one of the pins was not making contact or something else was going on. If indeed you are claiming that wiring according to the sources did not work. Unless the equipment you have is very old, it probably does Auto-MDIX anyway, so you could have used a simple straight cable probably. W Nowicki (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information on 1000TX ??? 

message: Searching the internet, most sites agree that there are two kinds of CAT5 cables used for Ethernet networking:
1) "Patch" AKA "Straight-Through"
2) "Crossover"
However, several sites, especially stores selling cables, say that there are two kinds of "Patch cables":
1) "Straight-Through" (a type of Patch cable)
2) "Crossover" (a type of Patch cable)
Click here for many examples
I think this Wiki page about Crossover cables and the other Wiki page about Patch cables need a section called "Terminology Confusion" which explains very clearly what the terms mean, to once and for all, clear up the confusion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.83.122 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only one kind of Cat-5 cable and that's a Cat-5 cable – arbitrary length, no connectors. A patch cable is a confectioned cable of a certain length, a 8P8C connector on each end, in either straight-through or crossover pinout. Zac67 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is special CAT5 patch cable that has stranded conductors. This opposed to CAT5 cable with solid conductors used for longer ("horizontal") runs. ~KvnG 13:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

text: I have changed the lead to remove "patch". "Patch" is not a synonym for "straight through". There are both straight through and crossover patch cables. If anyone thinks this needs further clarification, I suggest that be done at Patch cable. ~KvnG 13:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between "Patch" and "Crossover" 

message: Howdy. I was going to add to the opening paragraph as follows, "Intentionally crossed wiring in the crossover cable connects the transmit signals at one end to the receive signals at the other end (e.g. at the 8P8C a.k.a. RJ45 connector, where the 4 pairs or 8 wires total terminate)." However,  Am I remiss in thinking that "Ethernet" always implies use of the RJ45 kind of connector? The Article is about what a crossover cable does, but by logic, isn't it true that *all* Crossover Cables use the T568A and T568B standards and use 4 wire pairs? Also,  Shouldn't SOMEWHERE in this article, perhaps in an InfoBox, shouldn't RJ45 be mentioned?? .. From Peter a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Early Mention of RJ45 / 8P8C? Suggestion, but might be incorrect or limited in scope 

message: There is an article for Ethernet, another for 'Ethernet crossover cable,' ..why none for Ethernet cable? Or an article for Ethernet straight-through cable? Perhaps my searching abilities are sub-par in this (I.T.) Dept. ;-) Oh. P.s.  The pinout sections in this Article for half-crossed vs. fully-crossed are terrible and confusing, with unclear photos and diagrams; the paragraphs really should have very generic, straightforward, basic, layman's-terms text included saying something like PinX-to-PinY pinout is as follows: 1-to-3 and 2-to-6, then 3-to-1 and 6-to-2. My two cents. ...EDIT: From Peter a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, an "Ethernet cable" doesn't even exist. Ethernet uses standard and multi-purpose twisted-pair cables. A crossover cable is different because it's only used for Ethernet (in that form). --Zac67 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We also have Networking cables. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes 1. but  a WP article ought to exist solely on, Straight Through Ethernet Cable. Generically it's also known as a regular or non-crossover cable. And 2.  thanks for Networking cables article reminder but it's way too broad. From Peter a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I don't think so. A straight-through Ethernet cable is only relevant in contrast to a crossover Ethernet cable (which is actually a thing because it's only used for Ethernet, unlike a straight TP cable). Ethernet cable is a subset of the already present Networking cables, patch cable, twisted-pair cable, and fiber-optic cable. It's also a superset of Category 5 cable, Category 6 cable, and so on. Theses are specific types of cables, unlike Ethernet cable which is very generic. Why do you think we really need a new article for something that's already better defined elsewhere? --Zac67 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethernet, 'crossover cable' article, why none for (Straight Thru) Ethernet cable?