0

OK so I saw that just about all of the tutorials and HOWTOs say that an Intranet Ethernet spider web should connect to the back panel of a patch panel (on the top rack U), then follow-up using switch and PDUs as necessary, but connect the front panel of the patch panel to switches.

Is it a bad idea to connect the Intranet to the front panel instead and connect the back panel of a patch panel to the switch? Now I know the link-up is the same, but I was wondering why this method is not used.

If you consider you would want to change the switch/router/hub/whatever multi-network device, disconnecting the cables won't matter if the end is to the front or back panel of the patch panel. On the other hand, I imagine that if I manage to add an additional device with a dedicated line, it'd be easier to plug it in the front then either connect it to the back panel (for populated panels) or do the whole RJ45 hook-up for unpopulated patch panels. Also, if I were to add a small "local" device (such as a Raspberry Pi or Arduino), I think it'd be easier to connect it to the front panel then do the whole back panel exercise. Also, I don't think it'd be a good idea to mix them (f.e. have the network connect to the back panel as I see it is mostly or always done, BUT keep an Arduino or Pi in the rack to connect it to the front panel or directly to switches, when we could have some consistency between the cable wiring.

The reason I ask this is, as stated earlier, for me, it'd be easier to keep adding new cables/ devices to the front panel of a patch panel, then to the back. I would not want to mix and add SOME to the patch panel and SOME to the switch and then forget what port is for what. I'd rather keep a 1-1 ratio.

Is my suggestion a wrong approach? If so, why?

(also, I don't want to get into details about the different ways of wiring an RJ45 between the 2 color standards; this is simply a discussion about front vs back panel "priority" or rather, convenience of a patch panel)

Thank you!

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    I believe that the ideal practice is to (a) minimize flexing/movement of structural wiring (i.e. the in-wall cables), and (b) patch cables are easily replaced (compared to structural wiring). Seems like the patch panel you are familiar with has punch-down connections on the back. Have you considered using a feed-through patch panel (both front and back connections are RJ-45 sockets)?
    – sawdust
    Commented Sep 29, 2020 at 4:35
  • Yes, you are right. I know about punch-downs and regular one-way keystones, but I did not know about feed-through two-way keystones. Your commend explains why it is not a good idea and provided the workaround I needed. Would you mind giving me an "official" answer to the question? I'd like to checkmark your answer, as you deserve it. :)
    – TheNomad
    Commented Sep 30, 2020 at 0:05

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

Is it a bad idea to connect the Intranet to the front panel instead and connect the back panel of a patch panel to the switch?

If by "intranet" you are referring to your installed cabling, then probably yes.
I believe that the ideal practice is to (a) minimize flexing/movement of structural wiring (i.e. the in-wall cables which are typically solid-core wire), and (b) make changes (e.g. reconnections) using patch cables, which are easily/cheaply replaced (compared to structural wiring).
So the structural wiring should be on the backside of the patch panel, out of the way and less likely to be disturbed.

Seems like the patch panel you are familiar with has punch-down connections on the back.
Have you considered using a feed-through patch panel (both front and back connections are RJ-45 sockets)? Then you can attach RJ-45 plugs to your installed UTP cables (as you seem to prefer or already have) instead of being forced to punch them down at "stationary" positions on the panel.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .