I'm curious. How common is it for cable modems to have a router integrated with it? Most DSL modems I see coming from ISP's have the router integrated which allows NAT capabilities. Is this common for cable modems from ISP's or would a customer have to purchase a separate router?
Most of us prefer to have the router and modem in two separate boxes - it's more flexible and easier to handle single point failures.
One router can be used on any replacement modem when one goes bad and vice versa.
Also, the cable modem is part of the provider's network, and they administrate it. The NAT router is part of your LAN, and it's preferable that your LAN be under your control, not the cable network provider's control. That's best facilitated by having the two separate pieces of equipment in two separate boxes.
Most NAT routers used by cable customers also include a switch and/or a wireless access point as well. Those two pieces of equipment are also things that should be under the control of the end-user, so it's appropriate for them to be in the same box as the NAT router, although if someone is really picky about single-duty pieces of equipment, they can get a one-port NAT router, and add their own switch and/or wireless access point to them.
But combining the switch and/or wireless access point, the router, AND the modem in one box is simply not a good idea unless you're so cramped for space that it's more important to save the space of a paperback book than it is to have a better functioning topology.
no, they administer it.
There is no such verb as "to administrate".
The grammar police have arrived.
Administrate \\Ad*min"is*trate\\, v.t. [L. administratus, p.p. of administrare.] To administer. [R.] --Milman. [1913 Webster]
administrate v : work in an administrative capacity; supervise; "administer a program" [syn: {administer}]
Thank you Miss Crabtree. My I be excused?
A_C
I'm flattered when people who have a great need to prove me wrong resort to spelling and grammar issues. Even when they're wrong. lol
This is just my observation, but I think the reason is because the manufacturing costs of a DSL modem are lower than a Cable modem. This is because the CM requires a lot more shielding to prevent interference with nearby radios. DSL modems don't seem to have this shielding (and radiate a lot of trash), and so more of the budget can be spent on add-ons like NAT gateways. However, when my folks got DSL, the first modem they got from Verizon was not a gateway. I'm not sure if they were charged more for the gateway or not, but I know they sent it out without any question.
Comcast has a "home networking option" available that includes a NAT gateway equiped CM (installed and supported by comcast), but it is a somewhat high priced option, when you consider the price of a seperate NAT router/gateway.
Interesting, thanks for the responses everyone!
The main cost difference is probably due to the tuner itself. It's bulky and needs all that sheilding since you are working with frequencies approaching 1GHz. I think DSL only goes to a few MHz.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.