On Feb 1, 4:14*am, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:44:37 -0800 (PST),
> "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 31, 8:16*pm, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:32:36 -0800 (PST),
> >> "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >And most of these things sold as Routers, also have an
> >> >RJ11(telephone socket), because they have a modem built in.
>
> >> ??? *Maybe on your side of the pond, but generally routers
> >> don't have modems built in except for a few models targeted
> >> at sales to ISPs(' customers). *If you take a look somewhere
> >> like newegg.com, it's probably 9 out of 10 that don't have a
> >> modem built in (as a rough guess, I haven't actually taken a
> >> survey).
>
> >I am not completely sure on this, but
>
> >ADSL users, almost always have router with modem built in. From what I
> >have seen anyway. *I guess it is an ISP preference.
>
> There are many hybrid modems with router built in, but they
> are generally called modems, not just called routers as the
> product name and classification.

a marketting thing.

I guess If it has many LAN ports (on the switch!), they call it a
router(whether it has a modem or not). If it has one LAN port on the
switch, they call it a modem.

in reality, real routers have many router LAN(/WAN I guess) ports. So
whether it has many switch ports or one, is really not relevant!

>
> >There are hardly any small ADSL modems. *(relying on 2 of those
> >blasted things is worse, since if one goes down , temporarily or
> >permanently, then the connection is down. You know how they can
> >restart or overheat or both).
>
> How small does it really need to be? *They're about the size
> of any other small cased box?
>

well they tend to have one LAN port instead of like 4. So they tend to
be somewhat smaller than the ones that have 4. So they are smaller.

sometimes they are square rather than rectangular ;-)

> Relying on two is better, that way if one goes down you can
> buy a cheaper replacement,

Obviously having a second working thing is a good idea. But if it is
on a bookshelf waiting to be put to use , then it is not being relied
on.

I was talking of relying on 2. So having a router/modem connected to
one of those router sans modem.


> and with each separate they not
> only tend to have more features but you can also pick which
> features the router has, for example a newer wifi standar or
> gigabit ethernet switch built in.
>
>

yes.. The routers without modems tend to have more features.

and the routers with modems, if they are being marketted as modems,
tend to have less.

and the modems - half bridge kind of things - without routers, tend to
have no extra, or minimal features!

>
> >I did once have 2 linksys things, one a router/modem with a few RJ45
> >LAN ports. I just used that as a modem.
> >Another a router without modem in it- it had an RJ45 port labelled WAN
> >instead, for connection to a modem with an RJ45 port.. .
> >The router/modem near the wall, was doing NAT too.
>
> >Do any UK ISPs provide small ADSL modems? I would bet they prob do NAT
> >anyhow... *So are more than just ADSL modems.
>
> Yes, if it does NAT it is more than just a modem, although
> it seems even devices only called modems have been
> incorporating this feature and a *DHCP server, for example
> the quite popular Motorola Surfboard cable modems... though
> again you have little if any control that you would have
> with a dedicated, separate router.
>

I am not talking of small Cable modems, though it is interesting they
are having NAT too...

I meant small ADSL modems without NAT?

note- i know you can turn NAT off on some routers - probably the type
that do not have a modem built in. Since they have more flexible and
additional functionality.


>
>
> >I have seen USB Speedtouch ADSL modems, And they are just what I have
> >heard some call a "half bridge". *And they do not connect either. The
> >connection is done by software on the computer.
> > *If it is indeed a "half bridge", then is there any modem that does
> >not even have a bridge(switch) in it? *Personally, I do not see why it
> >would have one in it.. What comes in one side can go out the other
> >side. No bridging necessary.
>
> You've got a data link between the computer and the telco, I
> suspect it has to be a bridge if it isn't doing NAT.
>
>

brindging involves checking MAC addresses to see where to bridge the
thingamajig
(let`s call it packet in "the telecom sense"! I guess it is not Frame
since I think that word excludes the contents of the frame!!!).

So there is no need to check MAC addresses. There is only one place it
would go.

A similar thing was said of NAT Routers..They have a built in switch.
But really the router part is 2 sockets. No need to route. But since
telnetting in shows it has a routing table. I think that is why they
call it a router.. Since perhaps for cost reasons - mass production-
it uses that router firmare"/"electronics.


>
> >Cable users do have modems. separate. Modems with a cable connector,
> >and an RJ45 port. The RJ45 port going to one of those routers with a
> >WAN socket(to connect a modem.. *Along with LAN sockets.
>
> >Given that ISPs seem not to be providing small ADSL modems, it is
> >cheaper to just have one unit that is / acts as *router and modem. And
> >more reliable too.
>
> IMO, reliability has more to do with overheating than
> anything else, hence the reason why all my gear has had the
> covers pulled off and extra ventilation holes drilled into
> them. *That's the nice thing about owning your own equipment
> instead of leasing an ADSL modem as many people in the US
> used to do (and maybe still do?).
>

I agree reliabilty is more to do with overheating. That is one reason
why relying on 2 is worse. In case one goes down, and overheating is a
big reason why they might go down!!

<snip>