Found plugged into a coworker's PC



  • Found this plugged into a coworker's PC. One end plugged into the company network, and the other two ends plugged into the PC's two NICs.



  • Did it work?



  • Double the bandwidth!

    One place I worked at did the same shit with every wire in the entire office. Who needs 100mbps, 10 should be fast enough. Also, who needs to twist the ends of the cables properly? And who needs sheathing along the last 4 feet of every drop? And who needs to have their cables running AROUND flourescent light fixtures. That's whole FEETS of extra cable, when running it over the lamps is free!

    Needless to say the network slowed to shit once all 40+ people were logged in. I spent a weekend re-running everything, recrimping everything, etc.

    Much later, another place I worked at (briefly)-- it was a small webshop that was an extension of the owner's house. He was talking about re-wiring, and figured he'd just run Ethernet everywhere, but split off some wires from the Ethernet drops to act as phone drops.  So 10mbps, plus several feet of exposed, untwisted cable split between the Ethernet jacks and the phone jacks.

    I told him he might want to worry about line noise, and that it's just as easy and cheap to run two cables at the same time as it is to run one. Plus what if he ever wanted to use Gig Ethernet. He told me I had not idea what I was talking about.

    It was a php shop.





  • Please tell me you got an explanation from them as to what they were trying to do. It would make for a funny story over beers, I think.



  • Yes it did work. I thought I typed that into the post's tags but CS must have eaten it.

    Okay, after a bit more research it's really not a WTF like it appears. The third end has its receive pair connected to the transmit of the other ends, and the other pairs are disconnected. The coworker was doing frame capture on a specialized piece of hardware we produce (which has an RJ-45 Ethernet port) and needed a way to monitor the link. An old Ethernet hub would have accomplished the same thing, but those are few and far between now.



  • The electrical tape will bugger up the bandwidth (thus probably negating the reason for two NICs), but ethernet only uses two of the four twisted pairs, so it's possible to have something that looks vaguely like that that serves a legitimate purpose. On the other hand, when I zoom in, I can clearly see all four pairs going to both plugs, so . . . yeah, that's just retarded.

     We used to get "adpater cables" from our POS vendor that had an RJ-45 on one end, and a BNC connect on the other. Never did figure out if that was some custom rig for their receipt printer, or if their cable shop was just bored.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    Double the bandwidth!

    One place I worked at did the same shit with every wire in the entire office. Who needs 100mbps, 10 should be fast enough. Also, who needs to twist the ends of the cables properly? And who needs sheathing along the last 4 feet of every drop? And who needs to have their cables running AROUND flourescent light fixtures. That's whole FEETS of extra cable, when running it over the lamps is free!

    Having done that myself, back in my younger and stupider days, I can say with certainty that explains why they wanted more bandwidth. (And our cash registers only require 10k of bandwidth.) IIRC, we actually zipped tied one cable to the fluorescent fixture.



  • Oh for frame capture that makes a bit more sense. Yeah, he's basically just made a super-shitty 2-port hub.

    My old job has about 30,000 of those old blue 4-port Netgear hubs sitting in a closet somewhere. I wonder if they'd be worth something on eBay.



  • I did this once. We didn't have any hubs or switches available (we were in the middle of nowhere) and we had to plug some high "executive" to the network.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    He was talking about re-wiring, and figured he'd just run Ethernet everywhere, but split off some wires from the Ethernet drops to act as phone drops.

    The good ol' VoTP*.

    * Voice over Twisted Pair [1]

    [1] those italic tags have been defiled beyond recognition



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Did it work?

    This work everytime :)

    Etherkiller




  •  @Lorne Kates said:

    Who needs 100mbps, 10 should be fast enough.

    I don't understand this part. AFAIK, 10 or 100 Mbps is just a negotiation based on hardware support, but there is 1 TP for TX and 1 TP for RX. For GigE instead, all the TPs are used.

     



  • @Zmaster said:

     @Lorne Kates said:

    Who needs 100mbps, 10 should be fast enough.

    I don't understand this part. AFAIK, 10 or 100 Mbps is just a negotiation based on hardware support, but there is 1 TP for TX and 1 TP for RX. For GigE instead, all the TPs are used.

     

    If the line noise is too much for 100, most 10/100 will fallback to 10.

     



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @Zmaster said:

     @Lorne Kates said:

    Who needs 100mbps, 10 should be fast enough.

    I don't understand this part. AFAIK, 10 or 100 Mbps is just a negotiation based on hardware support, but there is 1 TP for TX and 1 TP for RX. For GigE instead, all the TPs are used.

     

    If the line noise is too much for 100, most 10/100 will fallback to 10.

     

    That's true, i agree. Said like that it was not very clear.

     



  • @Zmaster said:

    That's true, i agree. Said like that it was not very clear.
     

    That's because I had my pair untwisted and there was too much line noise.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    I had my pair untwisted and there was too much line noise.

    Usually they put a wooden spoon or a belt in your mouth so you bite instead of screaming.



  • I used something similar circa 2002 to provide my two computers access to the switch without having to run a whole extra cable. This was in the share house while we were at uni. Just need the equivalent at the other end and there was no problems.



  • People who have done this:

    What was your packet collision rate? I'm curious how well NICs deal with this.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    People who have done this:

    What was your packet collision rate? I'm curious how well NICs deal with this.

     

    With the right value resistors (not visible, but conceptually possible under the tape) it should work just fine. The carrier sense will prevent collisions.



  • @TheCPUWizard said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    People who have done this:

    What was your packet collision rate? I'm curious how well NICs deal with this.

     

    With the right value resistors (not visible, but conceptually possible under the tape) it should work just fine. The carrier sense will prevent collisions.



  • This thread is going nowhere so let's spice it up with this picture taken in a terrorist training camp.





    With so tiny screens there is no wonder they don't mind blowing themselves up.



  • @Ronald said:

    so tiny screens

    How about a 3.5 inch screen?



  • @Ben L. said:

    @Ronald said:
    so tiny screens

    How about a 3.5 inch screen?

    Apple will probably sue them for using a 3.5 inch screen.



  • I use two of these twisted pair messes  with cat6 ethernet cable to run a pair of 100 megabit links to the uplink (x.y.0.0/24 subnet) and one of the downlink ports (x.y.1.0/24) on one of my wireless routers so I can run uPnP / bonjour type protocols with wireless devices which use UDP through both the wireless routers, the router refused to allow UDP through.

     And I cant stuff any more of the stiffer Cat6 cables through the trunking without the top bursting off. 



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    If the line noise is too much for 100, most 10/100 will fallback to 10.
     

    Back in the day, I wished it would; due to a faultly network cable, I was forced to manually set my card to 10Mbps (and do so every time I got a driver update) because the "auto" mode would always attempt 100Mbps, and end up with an effective bandwidth aroudn 100Kbps.

    My father later repaired the cable; turned out when assembling it he had messed up the wiring, so at least one of the pairs did not actually work as twisted pair.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Oh for frame capture that makes a bit more sense. Yeah, he's basically just made a super-shitty 2-port hub.

    My old job has about 30,000 of those old blue 4-port Netgear hubs sitting in a closet somewhere. I wonder if they'd be worth something on eBay.

     

     

    Nah, for ad-hoc frame-capture on the run you need one of these. No kidding, I used to carry one in my laptop case... until airport security confiscated it. 

     



  • @Medinoc said:

    Back in the day, I wished it would; due to a faultly network cable, I was forced to manually set my card to 10Mbps (and do so every time I got a driver update) because the "auto" mode would always attempt 100Mbps, and end up with an effective bandwidth aroudn 100Kbps
     

    Ditto here: a cheapo PCMCIA-dongle NIC would negotiate 100 but kept dropping out. Manually forcing it down to 10 provided a much more stable connection.

    I've had the same issue with RealTek NICs talking to Netgear stuff. 3Com/Intel/Netgear NIC<->Netgear hub/switch seemed to work fine.

    The RealTek WLAN NIC in my Lenovo X100e is utterly shite, managing 1.5-2MB/s over 54MBits WiFi (apparently due to a software setting that can't be changed in Win7). Plugging in the cable gets closer to 9.5MB/s. 



  • @Cassidy said:

    The RealTek WLAN NIC in my Lenovo X100e is utterly shite, managing 1.5-2MB/s over 54MBits WiFi (apparently due to a software setting that can't be changed in Win7). Plugging in the cable gets closer to 9.5MB/s. 
     

    2MB? 9MB? Are these local speeds, or downloading some game off steam?



  • @Cassidy said:

    The RealTek WLAN NIC in my Lenovo X100e is utterly shite, managing 1.5-2MB/s over 54MBits WiFi (apparently due to a software setting that can't be changed in Win7).
    2MB/s isn't that bad for 802.11g (getting anything more than 20-25Mbps is pretty much impossible).



  • @Ronald said:

    This thread is going nowhere so let's spice it up with this picture taken in a terrorist training camp.


    With so tiny screens there is no wonder they don't mind blowing themselves up.


    I have the same monitor at work. :|



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    @Ronald said:
    This thread is going nowhere so let's spice it up with this picture taken in a terrorist training camp.


    With so tiny screens there is no wonder they don't mind blowing themselves up.


    I have the same monitor at work. :|
    I have reported you to the FBI.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @El_Heffe said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    @Ronald said:
    This thread is going nowhere so let's spice it up with this picture taken in a terrorist training camp.


    With so tiny screens there is no wonder they don't mind blowing themselves up.


    I have the same monitor at work. :|
    I have reported you to the FBI.

    WHAT‽ This is so wrong it's outrageous!

    You need to report him to the Department of Homeland Security, not the FBI.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    @Ronald said:
    This thread is going nowhere so let's spice it up with this picture taken in a terrorist training camp.


    With so tiny screens there is no wonder they don't mind blowing themselves up.


    I have the same monitor at work. :|
    I have reported you to the FBI.

    WHAT‽ This is so wrong it's outrageous!

    You need to report him to the Department of Homeland Security, not the FBI.

    Unless the guy is missing hand/fingers and/or has bright colored stains on clothing, he is not a suspicious character. Fury at the West for reasons ranging from personal problems to global policies of the U.S would also be acceptable.

    Work or hang out in a beauty shop. paintball facilities or home improvement stores? Be ready to observe and report using those 25 convenient checklists.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    @Ronald said:
    This thread is going nowhere so let's spice it up with this picture taken in a terrorist training camp.


    With so tiny screens there is no wonder they don't mind blowing themselves up.


    I have the same monitor at work. :|
    I have reported you to the FBI.

    WHAT‽ This is so wrong it's outrageous!

    You need to report him to the Department of Homeland Security, not the FBI.

     WHAT‽ This is so wrong it's outrageous!

    The NSA already read his post on the wire before it reached the forum. You don't have to report him to anyone.



  • @Ronald said:

    Be ready to observe and report using those 25 convenient checklists.

    Some of these activities are not that suspicious.

    Granted, "Inquiring about remote controls and model aircraft payload capacity and maximum range" might be a cause for concern



  • Okay, everyone on the internet is a terrorist. That explains the NSA stuff.



  • @Cassidy said:

    Ditto here: a cheapo PCMCIA-dongle NIC would negotiate 100 but kept dropping out. Manually forcing it down to 10 provided a much more stable connection.

    Way back in 2001 I had the similar problem with my dialup modem. It would connect at ~44kbps but drop out after a while. Forcing it to v.34 gave me a super-solid 33600bps connection. Apparently 5+km of copper is too much for v.90.



  •  LOL!! reminds me of this.

     



  • @amyb said:

     LOL!! reminds me of this.

     

    The best part of this video is when he writes on his sheet of paper directly on top of the cheap carpet. Will the pen tip break the paper or not? What a suspense.



  • @dhromed said:

    2MB? 9MB? Are these local speeds, or downloading some game off steam?
     

    Local: copying files between my server and this netbook. I've cabled up the house with CAT5 between the 100MBit switch up in my office and a 10/100 switch built into my router down in the lounge.

    @ender said:

    2MB/s isn't that bad for 802.11g (getting anything more than 20-25Mbps is pretty much impossible).

    It's shite when my laptop (and the missus' Macbook) can do 4-5MB/sec. The problem's definitely this WLAN NIC in the netbook - workmates have the same issue.[1]

    [1] workmates issued with the same netbook. One's even gone so far as to buy himself a USB WiFi dongle to get greater speed and range than the onboard card.



  • @Cassidy said:

    @dhromed said:

    2MB? 9MB? Are these local speeds, or downloading some game off steam?
     

    Local: copying files between my server and this netbook.

     

    You're saying your LAN is slower than common internet? My ISP's slowest package is 2MB/sec. Byte, not bit.

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @Cassidy said:

    @dhromed said:

    2MB? 9MB? Are these local speeds, or downloading some game off steam?
     

    Local: copying files between my server and this netbook.

     

    You're saying your LAN is slower than common internet? My ISP's slowest package is 2MB/sec. Byte, not bit.

     


    My ISP's fastest package is 6Mb/sec. Bit, not byte.



  • @Ben L. said:

    @dhromed said:

    @Cassidy said:

    @dhromed said:

    2MB? 9MB? Are these local speeds, or downloading some game off steam?
     

    Local: copying files between my server and this netbook.

     

    You're saying your LAN is slower than common internet? My ISP's slowest package is 2MB/sec. Byte, not bit.


    My ISP's fastest package is 6Mb/sec. Bit, not byte.


    Jesus. I feel for you bro. I'm not sure what my ISP's slowest package is, but the entry level tier advertised is 10MB/s. I'm at the penultimate tier gettting 65MB/s for $59.99. There's also a 110MB/s package, but it's an extra $40 bucks a month.

     



  • @dhromed said:

    My ISP's slowest package is 2MB/sec. Byte, not bit.

    You're also in Europe, where you can't swing a 10-foot fiber line without hitting 50 people in the face. The US has a much lower population density. I think it was only 2 - 3 people per square mile in the area where I grew up.



  • @mott555 said:

    I think it was only 2 - 3 people per square mile in the area where I grew up.
     

    True.

     However,

    That's an average, right? You don't have an actual 2-3 people every square mile; you have a village or city of 1,000-10,000 with huge farmlands, desolate areas, or nature in between. Since we (human beings) managed to place several cables across the Atlantic, and oceans have like super-low density population (I think), I think it's purely a matter of will (or false economy) that the USA (and Canada?) has such shitty broadband coverage.



  • @dhromed said:

    That's an average, right? You don't have an actual 2-3 people every square mile

    No, where I grew up that was the actual. We lived between towns. Our nearest neighbor was over a mile away. About 5 miles away was a town of 150 people, and 10 miles past that was the local metropolis of 1700 people.

    Nobody wants to spend tens of thousands of dollars to string cabling on a 5-mile long road that only has 3 houses. There's just no return on investment. I do believe they'd run the cable if you wanted to pay for it though, some of the richer families had broadband when everyone else was stuck with 22kbps DSL.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @mott555 said:

    Wonderful Report abuse

    Why not Report wonderful abuse?



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Why not Report wonderful abuse?

    FTFY.



  • @dhromed said:

    I think it's purely a matter of will (or false economy) that the USA (and Canada?) has such shitty broadband coverage.
    Especially when you have places in the US with population densities upwards of 50,000 people per square mile and they still have shitty everything coverage. Yet Tokyo with a density of around 16,000 people per square mile has magical cell phone services that deliver internet faster than fibre in the US



  • @OzPeter said:

    @dhromed said:
    I think it's purely a matter of will (or false economy) that the USA (and Canada?) has such shitty broadband coverage.
    Especially when you have places in the US with population densities upwards of 50,000 people per square mile and they still have shitty everything coverage. Yet Tokyo with a density of around 16,000 people per square mile has magical cell phone services that deliver internet faster than fibre in the US

    It's amazing how much overhead there is in routing traffic through NSA servers, afterall.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.