[159041] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joshua Goldbard)
Thu Dec 20 13:52:26 2012
From: Joshua Goldbard <j@2600hz.com>
To: "<tech-lists@packet-labs.net> " <tech-lists@packet-labs.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:38:56 +0000
In-Reply-To: <4fa2d368ac9672074f9681a06a2681e1@packet-labs.net>
Cc: "<nanog@nanog.org>" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
They haven't changed for you: http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=3Dtbn:ANd9GcTz=
JPvwOhWoL2afxBdl7a-LmYYWwzgQNpiHSXr4ppIMgsZuWP6Oy1NVnrpN
Cheers,
Joshua
On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:29 AM, <tech-lists@packet-labs.net<mailto:tech-lists=
@packet-labs.net>>
wrote:
On 2012-12-20 12:20, Michael Thomas wrote:
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the eth=
ernet
connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet
connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every ot=
her
cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging that if anybo=
dy
cared, ethernet cables could be many times smaller. Looking at wiring close=
ts,
etc, it seems like it might be a big win for density too.
So why, oh why, nanog the omniscient do we still use rj45's?
Mike
The primary reason that pops to mind is backwards compatibility... Ubiqui=
tous availablity of the
parts for RJ45 connectors (end connectors, wall plates, panels, etc.) also =
means that it is more
economical to continue using the well established connector. A new connec=
tor would
drive up costs initially, whereas continuing to use RJ45 is cheap and alrea=
dy works.
Jay
