"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:bkgaq3hfc4ah3ftjhraf77lfua64liijqj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 20:51:21 -0600, "Ken Maltby"
> <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>> Otherwise, it being a router is still a pretty desirable
>>> feature for the added control and isolation of a windows box
>>> from the internet.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actually the Routing process is not limited to the number
>>of ports on the box. You could have your Router route
>>the packets from your WAN (or any other external net)
>>through one port to daisy chained switches with many ports,
>>to the devices on your LAN.
>
> Absolutely, and where I have addt'l routers I don't use
> their WAN port at all, just having them running as access
> points with their DHCP functionality turned off so the
> primary router routes everything including wifi. It's odd
> how a full featured router with wifi often costs less than
> an access point alone, I suppose it's just the lower volume
> sales of consumer oriented access points that accounts for
> the cost discrepancy.
>
>
>
>>Of course the most common
>>external net that people want to connect their own network
>>to is the Internet, for that some kind of modem will normally
>>be needed, based on the physical method of distribution.
>>
>> As was so apply stated by "Rookie":
>>"You choose switches to connect computers within your
>>network, routers to connect your network to another."
>>
>>
>> This is a switch that I have found works great to cheaply
>>turn a 5e cabled 100Mbps LAN into a Gigabit LAN:
>>
>>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16833129013
>>
>> (I use 4500 Jumbo Packets so I don't know how it actually
>>is with 9000 Jumbo Packets, but it runs fast and trouble free.)
>
> I would imagine it does 9K fine, I bought 5 port version
> SMC8505T back in 2004 and it does 9K.
>
>
>>[The part # on mine is 751.8129, and I've had mine for more
>>than a year before the posting about different internals. Mine
>>runs on 9V 1amp. So it could be that I just got a good one.]
>>
>>http://www.provantage.com/smc-networ...t~7SMCS01F.htm
>
> I don't know if mine changed between then and now or not,
> here's a picture of the internals (after I cut a hole in the
> side and added a fan).
> http://69.36.166.207/usr_1034/smc_8505t-inside.jpg
> I'm not 100% sure but think it also had a 9V switching
> supply, a DVE brand with a less common curved casing instead
> of the flat rectangular ones I see on most equipment.
> http://www.f3.com.tw/products_fsg58.htm http://www.allbusiness.com/electroni...5880462-1.html
> No, I may be wrong about this. The PDF manual I'd archived
> when downloaded from SMC's site Nov. 2004, dated July 2003
> in the manual, lists
>
> "DC input
> SMC8505T: 12 V, 1 A
> SMC8508T: 12 V, 1.25 A"
>
> That manual was for both the 5 and 8 port models at the
> time, mid 2003 to near the end of 2004 at least. It also
> noted 9K frame support for both models.
>
> So you're saying they made a new revision that didn't do
> jumbo frames anymore? It seems odd they would go backwards
> in feature sets like that. I find mine works quite well
> considering it was very inexpensive at the time, IIRC it was
> one of the few under $50 on sale when I'd bought it, and
> seems to have slightly higher performance than some Netgear
> than adding the separate switch.
I wasn't saying that. One of the Newegg user review posters
was saying that there were various performance problems
being reported for the newer 12V 1.25 Amp boxes. And that
some models had a problem when over 4K were used. Mine has
always done Jumbo packets, with no problems using 4.5K packets
(I just haven't tried the 9K settings).
By the way, there are no such comments about the 8505T,
just for the 8508T, and they are essentially the exact same
thing; just using a version of the same chip that is made for the
number of ports for that box.
Luck;
Ken