Routers, switches & network speed?
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Sync on August 27, 2007, 4:01 pm
Please log in for more thread options We have a couple of systems with 1G network cards in our computer lab that we would like to do some testing with at their full 1G speed when talking to each other. They are sitting next to each other. However, they are apparently hooked to some kind of switch-- and the IT department claims "our network doesn't do 1G, it's 100M. Frankly, that suggests that there's no way a 1G network card could ever talk to slower networks which I don't believe. Don't routers typically provide for differences in speed of the uplink vs downlink side (not sure it those are the right terms, but I think one would get my drift)? In this case, the uplink is the slower side but I wouldn't think that should make any difference when the two machines are talking to each other on the same side of the router (assuming the router has a built in hub on the downlink side that can run at 1G). The question then becomes, they call what they have a "switch" not a "router"-- but from doing some research on the term, whether it can interconnect different speed networks, I gather may depend on whether or not it's a layer 3 switch (which is synonymous with router?) or not? What kind of "switch" is capable of this sort of thing, if any? We're willing to spring for a rounter or whatever we need to get this setup and it doesn't seem like rocket science, but our IT department here apparently thinks so... -- Sync | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Rick Jones on August 27, 2007, 5:11 pm
Please log in for more thread options > However, they are apparently hooked to some kind of switch-- and the
> IT department claims "our network doesn't do 1G, it's 100M. Frankly, > that suggests that there's no way a 1G network card could ever talk to > slower networks which I don't believe. I think it just means you have an old switch which isn't capable of gigabit speeds. Someone else pointed-out that many gigabit ethernet cards can also drop down to 100BT and 10BT speeds - that is to say the _copper_ gigabit ones can. I don't think that gigabit over fibre ever does/did that. I presume the systems are rather newer than the switch? > Don't routers typically provide for differences in speed of the
> uplink vs downlink side (not sure it those are the right terms, but > I think one would get my drift)? In this case, the uplink is the > slower side but I wouldn't think that should make any difference > when the two machines are talking to each other on the same side of > the router (assuming the router has a built in hub on the downlink > side that can run at 1G). Long ago and far away, terms were somewhat less "fluid" - for example, what most home users call a "router" - those small boxes with four-ish "local" ports and a single "internet" port are typically an amalgam of a NAT, a switch or perhaps hub, and a firewall. I'm not entirely sure they actually "route" in as much as they rarely if ever connect more than one IP subnet - although that opinion may depend on whether you think that Network Address Translation is routing or not. Depending on what is happening wrt re-writing application messages to account for the NAT it could be considered an application-layer gateway. > The question then becomes, they call what they have a "switch" not a
> "router"-- but from doing some research on the term, whether it can > interconnect different speed networks, I gather may depend on > whether or not it's a layer 3 switch (which is synonymous with > router?) or not? What kind of "switch" is capable of this sort of > thing, if any? We're willing to spring for a rounter or whatever we > need to get this setup and it doesn't seem like rocket science, but > our IT department here apparently thinks so... Curmudgeons would not call anything a layer-three switch. Switching (in the context of Ethernet) is deciding on egress ports based on layer-two addressing information (ie MAC/Ethernet addresses). Routing is deciding on egress path based on layer-three addressing information (eg IPv4 or IPv6 addresses). Dealing with different speeds is something which can happen in a switch. It can also happen in a router. rick jones FWIW, a hub is a multi-port repeater - all it does is "refresh" the signal coming-in on port port and "repeat it" out all the other ports. no traffic isolation. -- portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by glen herrmannsfeldt on August 27, 2007, 7:03 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Rick Jones wrote: (snip) > I think it just means you have an old switch which isn't capable of
> gigabit speeds. Someone else pointed-out that many gigabit ethernet > cards can also drop down to 100BT and 10BT speeds - that is to say the > _copper_ gigabit ones can. I don't think that gigabit over fibre ever > does/did that. Many use different wavelengths so it would not even be physically possible. In cases where it is, it might be that they would do it. > I presume the systems are rather newer than the switch?
(snip)
> Long ago and far away, terms were somewhat less "fluid" - for example,
> what most home users call a "router" - those small boxes with four-ish > "local" ports and a single "internet" port are typically an amalgam of > a NAT, a switch or perhaps hub, and a firewall. I'm not entirely sure > they actually "route" in as much as they rarely if ever connect more > than one IP subnet - although that opinion may depend on whether you > think that Network Address Translation is routing or not. NAT is usually implemented as part of a router. That is, there is a whole (sub)net behind the NAT box. Some LinkSys routers have an option called Gateway/Router. I believe in Router mode it acts more like a traditional router, that is, with NAT off. NAT is convenient in reducing the need for public IP addresses, supplying a firewall (due to internal addresses not being directly reachable), and allowing a whole house to use only one ISP supplied address. > Depending on
> what is happening wrt re-writing application messages to account for > the NAT it could be considered an application-layer gateway. In that case, I would say that you would only have one address behind the NAT box. There are devices that do that for Appletalk, for example the AsanteTalk box allows one localtalk device to attach to an EtherTalk network in bridge mode. Otherwise, a router such as a GatorBox or FastPath allows for a separate network on each side. (snip) > Curmudgeons would not call anything a layer-three switch. Switching
> (in the context of Ethernet) is deciding on egress ports based on > layer-two addressing information (ie MAC/Ethernet addresses). Routing > is deciding on egress path based on layer-three addressing information > (eg IPv4 or IPv6 addresses). I did figure out once how to make a true layer three switch. That is, packets keep their MAC address while going through the switch, by playing tricks with ARP. I don't know that anyone has ever tried to build something like that, though. It might allow the actual switch operation to be done with simpler hardware. > Dealing with different speeds is something which can happen in a
> switch. It can also happen in a router. (snip) > FWIW, a hub is a multi-port repeater - all it does is "refresh" the
> signal coming-in on port port and "repeat it" out all the other ports. > no traffic isolation. Single port repeaters tend not to be very useful. Hub is the term for the device used to connect up a hub and spoke network. The repeater served that function first, and tends to get associated with the word hub. As I understand it, many hubs are now switches (bridges). -- glen | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by glen herrmannsfeldt on August 27, 2007, 5:43 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Sync wrote: > We have a couple of systems with 1G network cards in our computer lab
> that we would like to do some testing with at their full 1G speed when > talking to each other. They are sitting next to each other. Just connect a cable between them. You don't even need a crossover, it is usual for gigabit to figure that out itself. > However, they are apparently hooked to some kind of switch-- and the
> IT department claims "our network doesn't do 1G, it's 100M. Frankly, > that suggests that there's no way a 1G network card could ever talk to > slower networks which I don't believe. All gigabit cards I know of will also do 100 or 10 Mb/s. > Don't routers typically provide for differences in speed of the uplink
> vs downlink side (not sure it those are the right terms, but I think > one would get my drift)? In this case, the uplink is the slower side > but I wouldn't think that should make any difference when the two > machines are talking to each other on the same side of the router > (assuming the router has a built in hub on the downlink side that can > run at 1G). A router with a built in hub (repeater or switch) running at gigabit speeds would be rare. Maybe not much longer, though. Five port and eight port unmanaged gigabit switches are pretty affordable, though. > The question then becomes, they call what they have a "switch" not a
> "router"-- but from doing some research on the term, whether it can > interconnect different speed networks, I gather may depend on whether > or not it's a layer 3 switch (which is synonymous with router?) or > not? What kind of "switch" is capable of this sort of thing, if any? > We're willing to spring for a rounter or whatever we need to get this > setup and it doesn't seem like rocket science, but our IT department > here apparently thinks so... Routers are for interconnection of different networks (or subnets in some cases). A switch, previously known as a bridge, will connect different speed devices on the same network. A repeater, sometimes known as a hub (because the first hubs were repeaters) only connects hosts at one speed. -- glen | |||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Routers, switches & network speed? | August 27, 2007, 4:01 pm |
| differences between repeaters, hubs, bridges, switches and routers | January 3, 2007, 2:25 am |
| Network Speed Question | September 2, 2006, 5:31 am |
| network card speed | February 8, 2007, 10:32 am |
| Software to test network speed? | September 9, 2004, 9:05 pm |
| file transfer speed in a network | October 11, 2006, 4:45 am |
| FPGA based Ethernet network analyzer - full wire speed, programmable | February 10, 2006, 9:38 pm |
| Large network and dumb switches | November 15, 2006, 10:59 pm |
| Intel Network card not wortking with all switches? | March 7, 2005, 12:07 pm |
| Linksys Routers | April 4, 2005, 1:14 pm |
| uplinking routers | August 6, 2005, 1:29 pm |
| Routers - Need your opinion | March 14, 2006, 2:37 am |
| connecting two wireless routers | January 20, 2005, 10:53 am |
| SOHO routers with 10/100 WAN ports? | April 8, 2005, 11:21 am |
| Cascading Wireless/Wired Routers | September 15, 2005, 1:20 pm |
> that we would like to do some testing with at their full 1G speed when
> talking to each other. They are sitting next to each other.