Fibre-optic rollout vs multiple Ethernet segments at a client. Yes/No? Why?

I

InTheCube

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
4,581
Reaction score
87
Location
InTheCube.co.za
I am overhauling the entire network of a medium sized company, and need some help and advice.

The client has 3 big factories, all seperate from each other, with very limited wired connectivity. The main factory houses the server and switch, and has decent ethernet connectivity to all the offices within in it. The other 2 factories are connected to the main factory wirelessly using WDS and several repeaters.

The wireless is pretty crappy, and since the company houses huge machinery, there is often interference and bad signal. Also, they often suffer from power spikes and cuts, and this just throws the WDS into chaos, when different repeaters can't connect to relay the data.

So we have:
  1. Factory 1 - the main factory, housing the server & switch, with wired and wireless coverage
  2. Factory 2 - connected to Factory 1 using WDS and 2 repeaters (WAP in repeater mode). About 130 meters from Factory 1.
  3. Factory 3 - same as Factory 2.

Now I was wondering whether it will be better to run Fibre from Factory 1 to Factory 2 and Factory 3, and then branch off from there with ethernet wiring to the various offices. I've gotten at least one quotation, and the cost is astronomical, and also scant on details of the setup, and the cost justification.

So I was thinking of rather breaking up each of the 2 long distance legs of 130m to Factory 2 and Factory 3, with shorter legs using 2 ethernet segments per leg instead. So from Factory 1 to halfway Factory 2, roll out ethernet (100mb, or 1gb), put a switch/hub/repeater in between, and then roll out another leg to Factory 2, with another switch in Factory 2. We then distribuite the cabling from the switch into Factory 2 wherever it is needed.

So, my questions:
  1. Do you think that this is possible, and worthwhile? I don't think my client will want to invest in fibre, as it is quite expensive, and they don't need that much bandwidth. All they need is a stable, reliable connection between the factories. More than this wouldn't justify the cost. They are currently surviving (barely) with the current wireless repeater setup.
  2. How does Fibre work, in terms of connecting to the network and ethernet switches? Do they use convertors? Are there seperate patch panels for fibre? Would there be a fibre switch (?) and/or patch panel in each Factory?
  3. What is the maximum length of ethernet cable? For 100mb, and 1gb? What about CAT5 and CAT6 cabling? How does this factor into my decision making?

This is my first real network installation/overhaul, so I am unsure of how everything fits together, what the best practices are, and what the limitations are. However, I want to do it properly first time round.

What are your suggestions, advice, opinions?

Thanks in advance.
 
Hi

Cat5 and 6 have a range of 100m, but apparently there are boosters or extenders available to increase the range.

I personally don't think 30m warrants the additional expense of fibre.

Cheapest and dirtiest way would be to build a box between the two factories and stick a R200 switch in it (assuming you could power it).


Wireless remains an economical alternative to fibre, and doesn't require expensive tools and technicians to repair when some bozo cuts it.

Is there no way you could raise the wireless directional Aerials above the level of the machinery between the factories and properly cable the factories?

Also how old is the existing wireless? Newer equipment could have a significant performance boost.
 
I agree with alloytoo, just upgrade the existing wireless. If its good enough for mines (with serious interference around such as 10 000A smelters), it'll be good enough for a factory. Get some nice big directional antennas and you should be set
 
triangulate the three together. so if wh2 goes down, wh3 is still up and running.

what about line of sight technology.
 
Look, running wireless in WDS is really the easiest way to do it, but it is very unproductive. Basically it then acts as a hub, transmitting all data is recieves. Rooting the traffic would be advisable.
Also, when last did somebody check the links and that they running on the correct frequencies?
Do a full scan on both sides of a link to see what freq's is open.

Not sure what fibre you were quoted on, but you can get a 2 core ruggidised fibre for very cheap. You will need fibre to ethernet convertors for both sides if you do not have fibre ports on your switches.
 
Fibre is a point to point link (some people don't know this) with advantages and disadvantages. It can be single mode (6-7 micron, used for LONG runs), but you'll probably use multimode (50 or 62.5 micron, easier and cheaper, for short runs). It normally needs 1 pair of fibres per link.

There are various ways to terminate fibre. On site, using ST connectors (or whatever connectors your switch uses), or by splicing a pre-made pigtail onto the fibre (eg. by using 3M Fibrloks). The Fibrloks then get put into a small box, and the pigtail gets plugged into the switch.

My suggestion (to keep costs down) is to dig for the duct yourself, lay the duct yourself, pull the fibre yourself, then get a pro in to terminate it. I'd get an unmanaged switch which either accepts fibre, or SFPs; I don't think most media converters are standards based, and they tend to be cheap (and nasty?). Look at the wiki page on gigabit over fibre, there are a few standards, and not all SFPs are the same price. Choose the standard with the cheapest SFPs.

Pros:

Not affected by lightning, so it doesn't need costly and sensitive lighting protectors on each side.
Heavy duty duct fibre is cheaper than proper waterproof cat5.
Longer distances.

Cons:

Harder to terminate (not really, but you obviously don't have fibre termination tools, and finding someone professional to do it isn't easy).
Requires either a switch that supports fibre, either natively or using SFPs, or media converters.

Your first installation always has a steep learning curve, but the next one will be easier.

So your options are.

1. Fibre
2. Cat5 with repeaters
3. special Ethernet over twisted pair adaptors on each side, then run twisted pair without any repeaters.
4. Fix your wireless.

I would choose 1. With 2 and 3 you still need to lay the cable, so they offer no real advantage over fibre, and if the lighting protection isn't done properly, they're likely to take down part of your network when they get hit. I doubt they would work out cheaper, all costs considered. 4 can work, but isn't as reliable as the first 3. It's cheap and cheerful, but I can't program and troubleshoot a router, so I tend to go for the idiot proof plug and play of wired. At R 1 600 per link, wireless is tempting though.

Edit: Try National Cables, for fibre prices (you want 2 pair, heavy duty duct, 50 micron) and Scoop for wireless and media converters. That should give you an idea of DIY prices. Outdoor links aren't cheap, so don't get fooled into wireless cause it's cheap; you'll regret not spending the few grand extra on fibre, when the wireless proves to be unreliable.
 
Last edited:
Drunkard #1 said:
Edit: Try National Cables, for fibre prices (you want 2 pair, heavy duty duct, 50 micron) and Scoop for wireless and media converters. That should give you an idea of DIY prices. Outdoor links aren't cheap, so don't get fooled into wireless cause it's cheap; you'll regret not spending the few grand extra on fibre, when the wireless proves to be unreliable.
Click to expand...

Lol @ "when it goes down." I've been on several mines where they use wireless and they hardly ever go down. In fact I remember one case where all they did for our installation (which was a critical fire alarm) was this: cheap waterproof box with power coming in for a cheap wireless router. Took out the standard antenna and attached a coax cable instead which ran to a large directional antenna mounted on an outside wall. Problem solved. Never had any down time on that wireless link.
 
Another cheapy way is to use the powerlines for your network. We installed it on a customers farm to link buildings together. Only problem is powerboxes. Its not always connected to the same "grid".
 
Archer said:
Lol @ "when it goes down." I've been on several mines where they use wireless and they hardly ever go down. In fact I remember one case where all they did for our installation (which was a critical fire alarm) was this: cheap waterproof box with power coming in for a cheap wireless router. Took out the standard antenna and attached a coax cable instead which ran to a large directional antenna mounted on an outside wall. Problem solved. Never had any down time on that wireless link.
Click to expand...

All it takes is one bad experience. I will never touch anything Linksys again, I won't even touch Cisco, if it looks like it's a rebadged Linksys. Having said that, I haven't tried wireless using Mikrotik, and I would give http://www.scoopdistribution.co.za/product_info.php?products_id=1001 those a try, if needed. Hopefully the OP has your skills, if he decides to go wireless.
 
Drunkard #1 said:
All it takes is one bad experience. I will never touch anything Linksys again, I won't even touch Cisco, if it looks like it's a rebadged Linksys. Having said that, I haven't tried wireless using Mikrotik, and I would give http://www.scoopdistribution.co.za/product_info.php?products_id=1001 those a try, if needed. Hopefully the OP has your skills, if he decides to go wireless.
Click to expand...

Hehe, wasnt my skills that set up that wireless on the mine, cant take credit for it. But did chat to they guy and its a straightforward installation. If you can get your home wireless to work you can get this one to work
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X