Switch vs Router?
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by gecko on January 28, 2008, 7:31 pm
Please log in for more thread options like pretty much the same thing. What is the difference? Why would one choose one over the other? Thanks Gecko | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Rookie on January 28, 2008, 7:38 pm
Please log in for more thread options 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk on January 31, 2008, 12:33 pm
Please log in for more thread options @
> 4ax.com:
> > > I notice that Switches and Routers are being marketed to do what looks
> > like pretty much the same thing. =A0What is the difference? =A0Why 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. do you think your explanation is crap? else why have it dissapear from the archive? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by kony on January 28, 2008, 7:58 pm
Please log in for more thread options 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by gecko on January 28, 2008, 8:32 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>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. Thanks Gecko | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Switch vs Router? | January 28, 2008, 7:31 pm |
| Switch VS Router | July 1, 2008, 8:26 am |
| Need Help With Modem-Router-Switch | September 26, 2007, 11:28 am |
| Wirless/router/switch.... not managed by web access on Netrwork PC | August 3, 2005, 7:49 pm |
| Wireless Broadband Router as a Switch / Access Point | August 27, 2007, 12:18 am |
| Looking for Router/Switch to Share Internet Connection/Network Computers | February 22, 2006, 11:18 am |
| ADSL router vs Cable router | January 14, 2008, 8:28 am |
| Need help - Linksys Etherfast Cable/DSL Router and a Linksys Broadband Router | March 30, 2008, 12:51 pm |
| Router and Hub? | October 1, 2005, 2:35 am |
| Router "not available" | December 22, 2005, 2:14 am |
| Linksys Router IP | July 5, 2005, 3:39 am |
| Wireless router | August 6, 2005, 7:47 am |
| wireless router??? | August 8, 2005, 6:44 am |
| dial-up router | August 30, 2005, 4:56 pm |
| Need more ports for a Router | August 31, 2005, 1:54 pm |
> like pretty much the same thing. What is the difference? Why would
> one choose one over the other?
>
> Thanks
>
> Gecko
>