On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:58:46 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:31:06 GMT, gecko <alpha@olympus.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I notice that Switches and Routers are being marketed to do what looks
>>like pretty much the same thing. What is the difference? Why would
>>one choose one over the other?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Gecko
>
>Rookie already mentioned logical difference, so I will talk
>more about practical differences in making a buying choice.
>
>Today most consumer grade routers have a switch built in.
>You can use these routers as a switch and reserve the router
>functionality for a later time, or make partial use of it if
>it's a wifi router in access point mode to extend your
>'sites wireless coverage. The main reason today for a
>consumer to buy a switch instead is if it has a greater # of
>ports, since the routers are commonly as inexpensive as the
>switches if speaking of 100Mb, after a rebate in the US
>they're as low as $0 to $15.
>
>Gigabit is another story, gigabit routers are dropping in
>price but still command a premium over 100Mb ethernet
>versions.
>
>The routing functionality itself is to segregate a LAN from
>a WAN. Typically you don't want anything on the WAN
>(*internet*) able to route to something on your lan, instead
>using the IP port forwarding feature on the router. This as
>a function of the NAT feature on a router means a router
>gives you an additional layer of security over a switch.
>
>Another feature of a router that is important to some is
>that when connected to a modem and used with an ISP, many
>ISPs only issue one IP address for their low cost
>residential accounts. This would allow only one system to
>connect to the internet if you don't have a router to do the
>NAT and act as that one system, although today some modems
>also incorporate a NAT and DHCP server feature so customers
>could use a switch instead of a separate router.
>
>Generally low cost switches are unmanaged, they pass
>everything they are capable of. Managed switches are
>significantly more expensive, and overkill for most
>consumers' needs. With a router you do often have a basic
>level of management features, moreso than with a switch.
>
>I suppose ultimately given a low budget (who wants to spend
>more than they need to?) the choice is basically:
>
>Router - more security, configurability and features (some
>features may vary per product, if your needs are unique more
>research may be necessary).
>
>Switch - cheaper if you want gigabit or more than roughly 5
>switched ports.
>
>Many people will first get a router, if their purchase came
>after they already had broadband internet, then suppliment
>that with a switch if they have need for more systems than
>the router will support, OR if several of those systems are
>situated a distance away from the router and it is easier or
>more cost effective to run a single ethernet cable to a
>remote switch and then cable from the switch to the systems,
>rather than running several ethernet cables the longer or
>more difficult path to these several systems (plus several
>long ethernet runs can easily cost as much or more than the
>price of a consumer grade switch). Those with wifi capable
>client systems may instead pick a 2nd router for the remote
>switch position so they have the option of using it in
>access point mode to extend their wireless coverage as
>mentioned previously.

Thanks

Gecko