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?
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.
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.
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:479FA424.45A489FF@yahoo.com...
> gecko wrote:
>>
> ... snip 81 line quote ...
>>
>> Thanks
>
> You quoted 81 lines for this 1 word answer. Not good.
The only thin worse than that was that you bothered to count how many lines
his reply was?!?
GT wrote:
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> gecko wrote:
>>>
>> ... snip 81 line quote ...
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> You quoted 81 lines for this 1 word answer. Not good.
>
> The only thin worse than that was that you bothered to count how
> many lines his reply was?!?
No I didn't. I am much too lazy. My newsreader, however, did. :-)
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
On 29 Jan, 00:31, gecko <al...@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
where are they marketted to do what looks like the same thing?
the things on sale tend to be either Switches and a switch alone will
not connect you to the internet. I have a switch, (for "ethernet",
wired internet) , it just has RJ45 sockets, the 8 pin sockets for cat5
network cables.
There is no Telephone/RJ11 socket.
The things sold as routers, with many RJ45 sockets, have a switch
built in. And most of these things sold as Routers, also have an
RJ11(telephone socket), because they have a modem built in. These
things with the many RJ45 sockets do NAT too. One might call them NAT
Routers. They are sold to the consumer market, users, techies,
businesses. I think you can turn the NAT off usually or sometimes, if
you wanted to.
Techies and some businesses may get "proper" routers.. e.g. Cisco
ones. Which prob don't do NAT. They may also turn their computer
into a whatever - router, switch , modem, network firewall, "e.t.c."
On 29 Jan, 00:38, Rookie <roo...@hates.spam> wrote:
> gecko <al...@olympus.net> wrote in news:orssp31a9fp486bsdhsqndcojom8a3monf@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > 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
>
> Router connects your network to another network so that information can be
> routed, a switch basically bonds two networks together. The first is OSI
> Layer 3, the second OSI Layer 2.
>
> You choose switches to connect computers within your network, routers to
> connect your network to another.
>
> That is a very basic explanation.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:32:36 -0800 (PST),
"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanley39@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).
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:44:37 -0800 (PST),
"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanley39@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.
>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?
Relying on two is better, that way if one goes down you can
buy a cheaper replacement, 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.
>
>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 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.
>
>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?).
If talking about ADSL, it may be as cheap to have a modem
with router built in, but with cable it's generally cheaper
to get a modem and router separately as routers these days
are a dime a dozen almost, actually the last one I bought
for a friend was $10 after a rebate and performed just as
well as mine though it had fewer features.
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!!
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:08:06 -0800 (PST),
"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>> 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.
If it has a modem they call it a modem (that happens to also
have a router in it).
>
>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!
True, a router only needs have one LAN and one WAN port,
though as with a modem, a router may happen to have a switch
in it in addition to being a router.
>
>>
>> >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.
Maybe a little but not much, routers are pretty small these
days, and light enough that I've seen some that wouldn't
even stand on end because the weight of the cables plugged
in would flip them on their sides if those cables weren't
pre-bent and fastened down.
>
>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'm speaking of having separate modem and router. By
increasing surface area and decreasing heat, you decrease
heat density (If all else is equal). It also means that if
your LAN had relied on a router's switch and the modem died,
it doesn't take down your whole LAN. Mainly though it is
the expanded feature set and being able to choose exactly
which router you wan which makes the separate components
more desirable.
>> 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?
Without NAT you'd need a proxy on one of the systems, or as
windows likes to call one of them "ICS".
On Feb 1, 9:32 pm, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:08:06 -0800 (PST),
> "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> If it has a modem they call it a modem (that happens to also
> have a router in it).
>
I just googled a router/modem I like, the Speedtouch 546.
It is a router/modem with many switch ports. So they don`t undermarket
it by calling it a modem.
The links call it a router.
Thomson SpeedTouch 546 v6 ADSL2+ Router
Maybe the fact that it says ADSL implies modem.. so they are calling
it a router/modem.
Interestingly, I have not seen router/modems with many switch ports
and a cable modem in there. (you`d know it had a cable modem, if it
had an aerial stalk like connector on it). Router/DSL modems, have
RJ11 connectors. DSL uses RJ11. Cable users have Cable sockets in
their walls.
>
>
> >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!
>
> True, a router only needs have one LAN and one WAN port,
> though as with a modem, a router may happen to have a switch
> in it in addition to being a router.
>
Really, it is a box. With functions. Router is a function or rather,
the name for the box that does the Routing function..
If it only has 2 ports, there is no need for it to do any Routing.
Just like I said with the switch/bridge. The USB DSL modem, it
connects 2 things together, there is no need need for it to be a
bridge.
<snip>
> >> 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'm speaking of having separate modem and router. By
> increasing surface area and decreasing heat, you decrease
> heat density (If all else is equal). It also means that if
> your LAN had relied on a router's switch and the modem died,
> it doesn't take down your whole LAN.
I do not know what you mean at all.
If you have a router and it overheats, then it overheated. If you add
a modem into the mix, it does not reduce the chance of the router
overheating.
Are you saying that the box that is a router/modem overheats more than
a box that is a router without modem ?
> Mainly though it is
> the expanded feature set and being able to choose exactly
> which router you wan which makes the separate components
> more desirable.
>
Well, before you said you were talking of a router and a modem. So now
you are talking of a few routers.
For me, a switch with many ports is fine. If I need more ports I would
add another switch.
Many routers is a different ball game.. It has to be justified. You
mentioned no reason. Like an office with different IP subnetworks, and
for security reasons, one cannot see another one.
> >> 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?
>
> Without NAT you'd need a proxy on one of the systems, or as
> windows likes to call one of them "ICS".
No, you don`t need it. You can connect a single computer up. No ICS.
And ICS is a Router. I don`t know anybody that calls a router a
proxy.
I have not used ICS, but googling, it seems that ICS uses NAT.
So what you wrote there seems wrong on lots of levels.
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:26:39 -0800 (PST),
"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>On Feb 1, 9:32 pm, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:08:06 -0800 (PST),
>> "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> If it has a modem they call it a modem (that happens to also
>> have a router in it).
>>
>
>I just googled a router/modem I like, the Speedtouch 546.
>It is a router/modem with many switch ports. So they don`t undermarket
>it by calling it a modem.
>The links call it a router.
>Thomson SpeedTouch 546 v6 ADSL2+ Router
There will always be occasions where a manufacturer names a
product differently, but generally speaking if you go to a
major eTailer like newegg.com and browse their "router"
category, the vast majority aren't going to have a modem in
them. The distinction is important so a customer doesn't
assume they're getting a modem if they didn't bother to read
all the product specs.
>
>Maybe the fact that it says ADSL implies modem.. so they are calling
>it a router/modem.
Yes, I would hope if they specify ADSL that there's a modem
built in, though I would wonder if some might try to tout
their product as a "cable / ADSL" router when this is just
an attempt to sway less educated consumers when it has
neither modem type built in.
>
>Interestingly, I have not seen router/modems with many switch ports
>and a cable modem in there. (you`d know it had a cable modem, if it
>had an aerial stalk like connector on it). Router/DSL modems, have
>RJ11 connectors. DSL uses RJ11. Cable users have Cable sockets in
>their walls.
I think this might have something to do with bandwidth...
that if you're a DSL provider you don't care so much if the
customer uses all their bandwidth but with cable everyone on
that segment is sharing bandwidth, so when a product is
designed to (hopefully) be desirable to ISPs, a cable ISP
will tend to prefer a product that doesn't as easy promote
having multiple systems connected. I could be wrong about
this, it's just a thought as I do agree cable modems with a
switch built in are rarer.
>> True, a router only needs have one LAN and one WAN port,
>> though as with a modem, a router may happen to have a switch
>> in it in addition to being a router.
>>
>
>Really, it is a box. With functions. Router is a function or rather,
>the name for the box that does the Routing function..
Perhaps, but it does change the design requiring a network
processor inside that is capable of this, as they are
generally hardware based rather than fully programmable
processors. I may be excluding the early routers back when
custom silicon wasn't available, when they were more of a
single board computer instead of cost optimized designs we
see today in consumer routers.
>
>If it only has 2 ports, there is no need for it to do any Routing.
Depends on how you look at it, what the requirement was. If
there were only two ports and no routing would you even need
a standalone box instead of a PCI card type modem?
Providing I had a free PCI slot I'd certainly rather the
card than a separate box, all else being as equal as
possible.
Otherwise, it being a router is still a pretty desirable
feature for the added control and isolation of a windows box
from the internet.
>
>Just like I said with the switch/bridge. The USB DSL modem, it
>connects 2 things together, there is no need need for it to be a
>bridge.
Suppose you boot a windows box, it has either a manually set
IP address or defaults to a range MS has set. You then have
a different address range than what your ISP is using for a
routable internet address, how would this be resolved if you
don't route or bridge? Remember it is still a networking
connection, not just a data link.
>> I'm speaking of having separate modem and router. By
>> increasing surface area and decreasing heat, you decrease
>> heat density (If all else is equal). It also means that if
>> your LAN had relied on a router's switch and the modem died,
>> it doesn't take down your whole LAN.
>
>I do not know what you mean at all.
How can I state it without saying essentially the same thing
again? When you have many separate features in the same
box, it tends to require addt'l chips to support these
features. Each chip has it's own inherant power
consumption, and the onboard supply circuitry losses depend
upon the current supplied (and different voltages required
by the chips), so ultimately you will tend to have higher
heat density when there are more chips in the same volume
*box*. Further, the typical brick PSU is also running at
higher % capacity because it becomes more expensive to use
one that has more than about 1-1.5A output, also increasing
heat density in the power supply and making it more prone to
failure if not made more expensive to accomodate this.
When the power consumption per each box is lower, and with
two boxes you have both more PCB area to 'sink away heat on
the copper on it, more air volume inside, and greater
external casing surface area upon which to put vent holes,
given similar tech (per era), two boxes will each run at
lower temp than if all these components were put into one.
As for the detail of a modem dying and still having a
functional switch in a separate (router) box, what more is
there to say? By splitting up these two each is less likely
to fail and having one fail will not cripple the user as
much. If the modem dies the LAN still works. If the
router/switch dies the modem can be directly connected to
one system (hopefully only temporarily, but if necessary
that system could have a proxy installed to make due until a
replacement part is found). Either way you retain more
functionality than if a combo device failed.
>
>If you have a router and it overheats, then it overheated. If you add
>a modem into the mix, it does not reduce the chance of the router
>overheating.
Yes it does, the total heat produced by the box is reduced,
and the load on the PSU is reduced.
>
>Are you saying that the box that is a router/modem overheats more than
>a box that is a router without modem ?
All else being equal, yes. Modem is not a feature integral
to a typical networking processor used for a router, they're
populating a PCB more densely to add parts for this
functionality (when possible, because it saves them money)
and avoiding adding a fan becaues that also raises cost and
many consumers deem fan noise undesirable.
>
>
>> Mainly though it is
>> the expanded feature set and being able to choose exactly
>> which router you wan which makes the separate components
>> more desirable.
>>
>
>Well, before you said you were talking of a router and a modem. So now
>you are talking of a few routers.
No I'm talking about one modem and one router, as a basic
concept though of course you could add more routers to a
network if you desired.
>For me, a switch with many ports is fine. If I need more ports I would
>add another switch.
As would many people, but there are certain benefits of
adding another "router" named device even if you don't need
the secondary device to actually route. For example if it
has wifi built in, most modern designs today allow the
router to be configured as an access point, and some a
bridge.
>
>Many routers is a different ball game.. It has to be justified. You
>mentioned no reason. Like an office with different IP subnetworks, and
>for security reasons, one cannot see another one.
There are many reasons, actually a better question is why
someone wouldn't use a router when possible, since they're
quite inexpensive, add a layer of security, allow multiple
system internet connectivity with only one internet IP #,
which becomes a matter of practicality since IP v4 numbers
aren't infinite, and ISPs even more finite so the cost
effective accounts for a typical consumer allow only one IP
number. Of course there are other workarounds, namely a
proxy but a router makes none of this necessary and is more
convenient and reliable than having to use a programmable
processor based system that tends to be larger, more costly,
and uses more power to run a proxy instead.
>
>I have not used ICS, but googling, it seems that ICS uses NAT.
>
>So what you wrote there seems wrong on lots of levels.
Yes, it does NAT, also proxy caching IIRC. Frankly I
shouldn't have mentioned it at all because we were
discussing standalone hardware solutions.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:63e9q3t5ce121u80evbhodh97q6ks7km2m@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:26:39 -0800 (PST),
> "jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>>If it only has 2 ports, there is no need for it to do any Routing.
>
> Depends on how you look at it, what the requirement was. If
> there were only two ports and no routing would you even need
> a standalone box instead of a PCI card type modem?
> Providing I had a free PCI slot I'd certainly rather the
> card than a separate box, all else being as equal as
> possible.
>
> 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. 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:
(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.)
[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.]
I just plug the switch into my existing router to have the Internet
available to the equipment on my LAN.
Bottom line you should have a Router to provide a connection
to, and some protection from, the Internet - but have a switch to
provide the interconnections to the devices on your LAN.
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.
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
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
(forget the model numbers, a tiny glue metal one and a
larger mac looking white one, GS605) gigabit switches bought
within the last 18 months, although really the performance
difference isn't much, I'm also satisfied with the lower
price, about $25 for the latter two Netgears. Gotta love
cheap stuff that works, but then I always end up adding a
fan or drilling some addt'l vent holes if anything feels
more than mildly warm after several other routers and hubs
(they replaced) died from capacitor failures. Back in the
day that was one of the advantages of 3Com gear, it used a
lot more tantalum capacitors though it sure cost a pretty
penny.
>
> I just plug the switch into my existing router to have the Internet
>available to the equipment on my LAN.
>
>
> Bottom line you should have a Router to provide a connection
>to, and some protection from, the Internet - but have a switch to
>provide the interconnections to the devices on your LAN.
Just to add, most consumer routeres do have switches
integral now, but to get one with gigabit capability,
especially more than 5 ports, will often end up costing more
than adding the separate switch.
"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.
>
> 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.
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 04:56:31 -0600, "Ken Maltby"
<kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> 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).
It's hard to say what happens when one person posts that,
could be anything like another switch inbetween source and
destination on the lan. I've used 9K since I got it though
I think many systems at that time had Realtek cards whose
driver limited them lower like 7K.
>
> 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.
Sometimes Newegg reviews are pretty frustrating if they seem
to indicate a problem but not enough info to know if the
problem was the device or user, or problem with the device
that a more savvy user could overcome. I wouldn't consider
it much of a problem if it was limited to 4K though, still
better than 1K5.
Switch vs Router? 
Linear Mode
