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?
gecko <alpha@olympus.net> wrote in newsrssp31a9fp486bsdhsqndcojom8a3monf@
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.
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.
> "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?!?
And you too need to learn some basic rules of Usenet to benefit to all
Usenet users. And to point out to you what you don't get
- You may have to count the number of line *but* most Usenet users do not,
because most readers should tell you how many line the message is *before*
you start downloading the message-body. I don't use OE, but I guess OE may
give the similar information too, and if it does then it's another lesson
you need to learn.
- And most (not you) Usenet users don't like.
- Long quote
- Top-posting
- Billboarding
And that's why you may noticed most people only quote a small part of the
original (the part they want to response to) *not* a whole bloody long
message.
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 newsrssp31a9fp486bsdhsqndcojom8a3monf@
> 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.
Switch vs Router? 
rssp31a9fp486bsdhsqndcojom8a3monf@
Linear Mode
