Question: I am currently working on connecting ip cameras together .
I am using cat7 sftp cable .

according to the bellow article :

<http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-rj45-and-rj48/>

I understand that :

1. RJ45 is used with UTP cable only .
2. I can't use RJ48 because it will not fit into my NVR and SWITCHES .

I have two questions :

1. I found RJ45 which fit cat7 cable .

[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071GXPTVZ/ref=twister\_B09ZYBKJFZ](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B071GXPTVZ)

How could that happen ? RJ45 should be used with utp cables only ? right ?

2. what's the right connector to choose to connect cat7 sftp to ip camera ?

some people suggest to connect Cat6a Cat7 Keystone at the end of cat7 cable .

[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074PKQ1S1/](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B074PKQ1S1)

then to use short cat 6 cable to connect between the keystone and ip camera .

is that the correct method ?

Thank you

Answer: 
I think the OP is not so much saying that we should roll ports specifically into the routable address scheme of the internet, but instead why not give every application/process/thread its own unique, routable address?

It's definitely a valid question, and you're not the first person to wonder this - to quote [John Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Day_(computer_scientist)) "**Networking is IPC and ONLY IPC**".

Currently, this kind of thing has to be handled at the application layer - if I'm visiting Facebook on my phone over cell signal and then my phone switches over to WiFi, technically my source IP address (and port) has changed completely from Facebook's perspective, and it's only the tokens passed by my browser that are accepted as being the same (application-level) session.

But why stop at doing away with ports? Consider the situation with phone numbers - a phone number is just a poor proxy for specifying the identity of the person you want to speak to. That's why phones have contact lists - phone numbers are just a leaky bit of implementation that we want to ignore as quickly as possible. It's why DNS was invented - the authors of the Internet protocols chose to implement a centralized/hierarchical naming authority system versus your phone's local contact list, but same idea.

What you will want to read about are alternative Internet protocol proposals like John Day's [Recursive Internetwork Architecture (RINA)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_Internetwork_Architecture), where he critiques several historically accumulated design flaws in TCP/IP and the rest of the Internet protocol stack and proposes RINA as a solution.

Specifically to your question, a couple of bullet points out of John Day's critiques are relevant:

* Multihoming: the IP address and port number are too low-level to identify an application in two different networks. DNS doesn't solve this because hostnames must resolve to a single IP address and port number combination, making them aliases instead of identities. Neither does LISP, because i) it still uses the locator, which is an IP address, for routing, and ii) it is based on a false distinction, in that all entities in a scope are located by their identifiers to begin with;[3] in addition, it also introduces scalability problems of its own.[4]
* Mobility: the IP address and port number are also too low-level to identify an application as it moves between networks, resulting in complications for mobile devices such as smartphones. Though a solution, Mobile IP in reality shifts the problem entirely to the Care-of address and introduces an IP tunnel, with attendant complexity.

Whether you agree with him or not (as far as I know this proposal doesn't have a ton of traction), the flaws he points to and solutions he proposes are quite thought provoking.
Frame Challenge: Once The ports are folded into IP addresses, you'll be burning IP addresses for a singular device, and run the risk of actually running out of IP addresses.
=============================================================================================================================================================================

Currently in IPv4, the number of valid ports is 65,535 - but 0 - 1023 are restricted or reserved port numbers (Often reserved by specific company processes as well - for example, apparently [Apple QuickTime, and Remote Desktop Protocol](https://www.techtarget.com/searchnetworking/definition/port-number) does.

Natural Address Translation takes advantage of the fact that, for most users, which unrestricted and unreserved port being used generally doesn't matter for the average use case, and doesn't need to be aligned between client and server, so we can re-map them. But what made it required to be a thing that we went with was that IP address blocks were bought by companies in large, "We'll never run out of numbers to assign!", well...numbers. Large enough *to* run out.

On top of this, once machines move around and switch ISPs, then they would run through more IP addresses, and their previous one would have to be *expired* when routing to them.

With a single IP address per machine, you can "keep" that old IP address assigned to that older device, even if it temporarily leaves where it was assigned the IP address from for a short time (More likely to be a mobile machine, or a laptop), and keeping those lower will help.

Granted, 2^128 is a *lot* of IP addresses, but ports will allow us to avoid running into a similar version of the problem with IPv4 thinking it had more than enough IP addresses for everyone and their dog.