It seems like nothing is coming close to replacing (or, acting as an alternative) RJ45's for ethernet applications. I've encountered ND9's and M8's/M12's on some kit but primarily industrial applications. Any other alternatives that are in "widespread" use (i.e., an application domain with which I might have to interact so "plan ahead")? For daughtercard connections, I imagine anything will do (assuming careful layout).
RJ45 (8P8C) alternatives IN USE for ethernet
Started by ●October 14, 2023
Reply by ●October 15, 20232023-10-15
On 2023-10-15, Don Y wrote:> It seems like nothing is coming close to replacing (or, > acting as an alternative) RJ45's for ethernet applications.If you're talking about "standard" 10/100/1000BASE-T over copper, yep. But then there's always fiber / DAC / WiFi as well, if you choose to use them as L1 interconnection media. -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
Reply by ●October 15, 20232023-10-15
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 19:44:40 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:>It seems like nothing is coming close to replacing (or, >acting as an alternative) RJ45's for ethernet applications. > >I've encountered ND9's and M8's/M12's on some kit but >primarily industrial applications. > >Any other alternatives that are in "widespread" use >(i.e., an application domain with which I might have to >interact so "plan ahead")? > >For daughtercard connections, I imagine anything will do >(assuming careful layout).Pity that the "universal" bus isn't ethernet using the USBC connector.
Reply by ●October 15, 20232023-10-15
On 10/15/2023 7:54 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:> On 2023-10-15, Don Y wrote: >> It seems like nothing is coming close to replacing (or, >> acting as an alternative) RJ45's for ethernet applications. > > If you're talking about "standard" 10/100/1000BASE-T over copper, yep.Yes. I see a few "oddball" alternatives (MD8 & 12 and ND9) but only in special instances... nothing that seems to approach a new sort of "standard". I'm looking to see if there are differential stuffing options that might make sense for "spare" network interfaces on boards with an eye towards "other" interconnects. E.g., if you have a USB interface, you have to make a decision as to which USB connector best fits your targeted applications. For the most part, they are interchangeable. Likewise, for legacy 422/232/423/485/etc. connections. For ethernet connections, there only seem to be two in widespread use: 8P8Cs and punchdown blocks. (There are some MII connectors but only for external PHYs)> But then there's always fiber / DAC / WiFi as well, if you choose to use > them as L1 interconnection media. > >
Reply by ●October 15, 20232023-10-15
On 2023-10-15, Don Y wrote:> On 10/15/2023 7:54 AM, Dan Purgert wrote: >> On 2023-10-15, Don Y wrote: >>> It seems like nothing is coming close to replacing (or, >>> acting as an alternative) RJ45's for ethernet applications. >> >> If you're talking about "standard" 10/100/1000BASE-T over copper, yep. > [...] > I'm looking to see if there are differential stuffing options that > might make sense for "spare" network interfaces on boards with an > eye towards "other" interconnects.Not for 802.3-compliant ethernet networking there isn't.> E.g., if you have a USB interface, you have to make a decision as > to which USB connector best fits your targeted applications. > For the most part, they are interchangeable.USB was designed that way though, unlike 802.3 networks over copper.> > For ethernet connections, there only seem to be two in widespread > use: 8P8Cs and punchdown blocks.If you're limiting yourself to 10/100/1000BASE-T ethernet, since the physical medium is part of the spec. As I mentioned, there's a handful of other options if you really want to use them. -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
Reply by ●October 15, 20232023-10-15
On 10/15/2023 2:49 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:> On 2023-10-15, Don Y wrote: >> On 10/15/2023 7:54 AM, Dan Purgert wrote: >>> On 2023-10-15, Don Y wrote: >>>> It seems like nothing is coming close to replacing (or, >>>> acting as an alternative) RJ45's for ethernet applications. >>> >>> If you're talking about "standard" 10/100/1000BASE-T over copper, yep. >> [...] >> I'm looking to see if there are differential stuffing options that >> might make sense for "spare" network interfaces on boards with an >> eye towards "other" interconnects. > > Not for 802.3-compliant ethernet networking there isn't.ND-9s are now finding a place in industrial networking -- at up to CAT6 and PoE++ applications. While I don't need that speed or power level, PHYSICAL compatibility (for the cost of an additional set of pads) has some value. Esp if I can just interface to such a device without having to redesign a board and/or packaging.>> E.g., if you have a USB interface, you have to make a decision as >> to which USB connector best fits your targeted applications. >> For the most part, they are interchangeable. > > USB was designed that way though, unlike 802.3 networks over copper.People (industries) have a habit of revising connectors to accommodate their own particular needs -- without wanting to reinvent an entire standard. Cisco routed power on "unused" pins of CAT5 cables for THEIR version of PoE. Big enough market and name and it becomes a /de facto/ standard. "RS232" is available on all sorts of connectors -- with varying degrees of compliance to The Standard (*pick* a standard). 10P10C, 8P8C, TRS, TRRS, DB9, DB25, RJ11, etc. A Sun SCSI cable is more like a fire hose. Apple uses a *square* connector. You can even find DB25's as "accepted terminations". Video cables come in all different flavors as befitting the mechanical constraints of one or both ends of the cable (I have some that are VHDCI -- but a "regular" VGA cable thereafter). The trick is to anticipate how connector use may evolve.>> For ethernet connections, there only seem to be two in widespread >> use: 8P8Cs and punchdown blocks. > > If you're limiting yourself to 10/100/1000BASE-T ethernet, since the > physical medium is part of the spec. As I mentioned, there's a handful > of other options if you really want to use them.
Reply by ●October 16, 20232023-10-16
On 2023-10-15 04:44, Don Y wrote:> It seems like nothing is coming close to replacing (or, > acting as an alternative) RJ45's for ethernet applications. > > I've encountered ND9's and M8's/M12's on some kit but > primarily industrial applications. > > Any other alternatives that are in "widespread" use > (i.e., an application domain with which I might have to > interact so "plan ahead")? > > For daughtercard connections, I imagine anything will do > (assuming careful layout). >Search google images "IEC 61076-3-124". Arie
Reply by ●October 17, 20232023-10-17
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 4:08:48 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:> On 10/15/2023 2:49 PM, Dan Purgert wrote: > > On 2023-10-15, Don Y wrote: > >> On 10/15/2023 7:54 AM, Dan Purgert wrote: > >>> On 2023-10-15, Don Y wrote: > >>>> It seems like nothing is coming close to replacing (or, > >>>> acting as an alternative) RJ45's for ethernet applications. > >>> > >>> If you're talking about "standard" 10/100/1000BASE-T over copper, yep. > >> [...] > >> I'm looking to see if there are differential stuffing options that > >> might make sense for "spare" network interfaces on boards with an > >> eye towards "other" interconnects.> The trick is to anticipate how connector use may evolve.> >> For ethernet connections, there only seem to be two in widespread > >> use: 8P8Cs and punchdown blocks.> > If you're limiting yourself to 10/100/1000BASE-T ethernet, since the > > physical medium is part of the spec. As I mentioned, there's a handful > > of other options if you really want to use them.No mention yet of SFP? That'll open up lots of possibilities, optical and wired (fiber channel) and it's likely flexible enough to suit the whatever-comes-next.
Reply by ●October 17, 20232023-10-17
On 10/16/2023 7:50 AM, Arie de Muijnck wrote:> On 2023-10-15 04:44, Don Y wrote: >> It seems like nothing is coming close to replacing (or, >> acting as an alternative) RJ45's for ethernet applications. >> >> I've encountered ND9's and M8's/M12's on some kit but >> primarily industrial applications. >> >> Any other alternatives that are in "widespread" use >> (i.e., an application domain with which I might have to >> interact so "plan ahead")? >> >> For daughtercard connections, I imagine anything will do >> (assuming careful layout). > > Search google images "IEC 61076-3-124".Yes, but, as I said above (wrt the ND9, M8/12) they only seem to see use in industrial applications (which is the market my colleague -- who suggested them to me -- serves). I was wondering (worrying?) that there may be some set of more ubiquitous kit that used an alternative (in much the same way that we see lots of "RS232" alternatives addressing portions of markets) It's interesting that the flimsy connectors in widespread use haven't found a more robust replacement, esp as more and more "casual" users have (bad?) experiences with them!
Reply by ●October 18, 20232023-10-18
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 6:35:33 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:> On 10/16/2023 7:50 AM, Arie de Muijnck wrote: > > On 2023-10-15 04:44, Don Y wrote: > >> It seems like nothing is coming close to replacing (or, > >> acting as an alternative) RJ45's for ethernet applications.> It's interesting that the flimsy connectors in widespread use > haven't found a more robust replacement, esp as more and more > "casual" users have (bad?) experiences with them!As a semi-casual user, I've had bad experiences, then got a bag of replacement connectors and a crimp tool... that fixed all my problems. A different connector would just be... a new bunch of problems.
