Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:47237 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757089Ab2J2RGM (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:06:12 -0400 Received: from [192.168.100.226] (firewall.candelatech.com [70.89.124.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns3.lanforge.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id q9TH6BJL021910 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:06:11 -0700 Message-ID: <508EB783.9080000@candelatech.com> (sfid-20121029_180616_165655_39B11451) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:06:11 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Any thoughts on how to best shield u.fl connectors on NICs? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: It appears hard to get well-shielded u.fl (IPEX) to SMA pigtails, and all of the modern ath9k NICs I've seen use u.fl connectors on the NIC. I have found a vendor that will do double-shielded 1.32mm cable, and I have some of those on order, but the way u.fl connectors are made it seems there is always a bit of un-shielded cable where the connector is crimped onto the cable. I am curious if anyone has any suggestions or experience with connecting u.fl NICs to SMA cables in a highly shielded manner... Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com