[Tfug] Cable test fail

[Bexley Hall]

Hi Adrian,

On 1/14/2014 9:19 PM, Adrian wrote:
> It was made wrong.

Well, it was made wrong if it was intended to be a patch cable!  :>
It was obviously mass produced.  *Molded* hoods on both ends, etc.
It just seems like it wwas intended for something completely
different -- and they just decided to exploit the same connectors
and type of "cable" that would make THEIR cable readily mistaken
for a genuine patch cord!  :<

> From your description, it sounds like it should be a normal
> straight cable. Normal 10/100base pairs used would be 1+2 and 3+6 (1000base
> and some obscure 10/100 variants use all 4 pairs). A normal straight-thru Cat5
> cable would have the following wire pairing:
> 1+2  ->   1+2
> 3+6  ->   3+6
> 4+5  ->   4+5
> 7+8  ->   7+8

Yes.

> A cross-over cable would have:
> 1+2  ->   3+6
> 3+6  ->   1+2
> 4+5  ->   7+8
> 7+8  ->   4+5

Yes.

> Instead yours has has a defect I would normally refer to as a "roll". One wire
> was misplaced (the #6 wire into the #3 slot) and the subsequent wires roll
> down one space. A split would normally be defined as swapping two wires in the
> same or between two different pairs at one (or both) ends.

I was hoping someone would chime in and say, "Oh, crap!  Another one
of THOSE!  They are used as <whatever> on <whichever>.  Any time one
finds its way into the datacenter, we take it out back and BURN it!".

I.e., I am hesitant to discard it for fear someone will ultimately
go looking for it "in the cable box".  OTOH, just tossing it back in
there means the next guy who grabs it because it is so "new looking"
will find himself facing the same puzzle!

<frown>

I made a nice, pretty (i.e., noticeable!) label for it that clearly
states "This is not a network cable" in the hope that it saves someone
that experience, later!

Thx,
--don