What is the main difference between Router and Switch?. Both functionality are part of Software or Hardware?. Why both are required?. Is data link layer is same as Mac layer?.
Does every Router had one WAN port as uplink and many ports are downlink right?. Is the switch also samething?.
Can I connect one Router's LAN port to one more Router's WAN port, this way I can maintain two subnets?.
Thanks, GS.
In article , GS wrote: :What is the main difference between Router and Switch?.
We discussed this about two weeks ago:
:Both :functionality are part of Software or Hardware?.
No, that isn't a relevant distinction.
:Why both are required?.
They usually operate on different data layers. A switch usually operates on Layer 2 (link layer), whereas a switch usually operates on Layer 3 (IP layer).
:Is data link layer is same as Mac layer?.
I've never heard of a "Mac layer". MAC (Media Access Control) addresses are a technique that -some- data link layers use to get data to the right point.
:Does every Router had one WAN port as uplink and many ports are :downlink right?.
No and No. A router may have any number of WAN ports, including none. There is no meaningful 'uplink' or 'downlink' for most routers.
You should practically ignore "uplink" and "downlink" when trying to figure out the difference between routers and switches. An uplink or downlink is just an interface, perhaps faster than the other interfaces (but not necessarily), and for the most part the only special property it might have is being wired in reverse so you can use a straight-through cable to connect to devices.
On some devices, there are additional special properties: for example on some of Cisco's middle-aged switches, the uplinks were the only ports that could take part in a GigaChannel, or perhaps the only ports that could have ACLs applied to them. This is, though, just an implementation detail and not a defining factor in switch vs router.
:Is the switch also samething?.
No.
:Can I connect one Router's LAN port to one more Router's WAN port, this :way I can maintain two subnets?.
If it is a "WAN port" it might not be ethernet like the LAN port likely is. If they are both ethernet, go ahead... but be advised that most routers allow you to have multiple subnets.
"Router" is a technical term for a device which provides a specific service (path selection and forwarding) at the network layer of the OSI reference model.
"Switch" is a marketing term which means whatever the hack writing the brochure wants it to mean. Taken out of context, it is device used on railroad tracks to alter the path taken by a train, a device (usually wall mounted) for controlling lightbulbs and other electrical devices, or a verb used (with "bait and") to describe a popular (albeit unsavory) marketing tactic.
TBD. One of the marketing uses of "switch" is to define a box which does "it" in hardware. What "it" is is frequently undefined.
Huh? Both of what? router & switch or HW & SW? If the former, both may or may not be required. If the latter, that's an architecural decision by the equipment designer :-)
The MAC (Media Access Control) layer is a sublayer of the link layer in the IEEE 802 slicing and dicing of the lower two layers of the OSI reference model. It contains aspects of both link and physical layers. LAN bridging is actually done at the MAC sublayer, not the link layer (Ethernet as used in TCP/IP has only a MAC sublayer in the link layer, other protocol suites use 802.3 instead and include an 802.2 LLC (logical link control) sublayer in the link layer as well. I am not aware of any bridges which function exclusively at the LLC sublayer (an LLC LSAP does not define a physical destination) although useful 802.3 to 802.5 translational bridges tend to get involved in every layer from MAC up through internnet.
Nope. A router may have anywhere from a single port (e.g. router on a stick for inter-VLAN routing) to many many WAN and LAN ports (from the viewpoint of the router, there is no difference between a WAN port and a LAN port, however, there may be major differences from the viewpoint of the performance goals and expectations of the network designer).
Could be, but may not be.
This does not make sense as a general question, as it assumes specific routers with specific capabilities and limitations.
If I misjudged you and this is a homework problem, remember to give me proper credit in your answer... professors know how to use Google to search Usenet even if you don't.
On 27.04.2005 16:40 Vincent C Jones wrote
ACK, router is a device connecting on OSI layer 3.
NACK, you are wrong. Switch is a device conncting on OSI layer 2.
You are absultely right regarding everything called layer N switch, where N>2.
Arnold
HUH?? If "switch" had the definition that you claim above, there would be no such thing as a "layer N switch" with N of any value other than 2. Compare and contrast with the equivalent use of the accepted OSI RM terms as in "layer 2 router" and "layer 3 bridge."
If I hand you a box and say it is an eight port switch (and nothing else), does that help you understand what the box is or how it might be used? Compare that situation to handing you a box and telling you it is an eight port bridge. As to why the marketing trolls felt it necessary to invent a new term, that is a different story and would take a few pages to explain. But suffice to say that the early bridges were not particularly fast, and Kalpana wanted a term to distinguish their cut-through implementation from the store-and-forward competition. As they say, once the term got associated with high performance, every marketing droid seemed to think that their new high performance box had to be called a switch, regardless of what it did or how it did it.
Bottom line: I would be happy to accept the correction if you could provide some _primary_ citations to this definition. Keep in mind that "common usage" of the term with a particular meaning does not make it technically correct (consider the plight of the term "baud" when referring to modem data rates).
On 28.04.2005 02:25 Vincent C Jones wrote
switch:
Arnold
In article , Arnold Nipper wrote: :On 28.04.2005 02:25 Vincent C Jones wrote
:> Bottom line: I would be happy to accept the correction if you could :> provide some _primary_ citations to this definition.
:switch:
Have a look, Arnold, at Cisco's Products page,
Proceed to the switches area, and in particular the "Complete products portfolio" section,
Cisco categorizes all of these as "switches"... and that means that Vincent was exactly right, that -stripped of context-, "switch" means pretty much whatever the brochure-writer wants. If Cisco itself lumps the 650x with Sup720 in with "switches", then it isn't up to you to assert that "No, no, 'switch' always means Layer 2 unless it specifically says 'Layer N'."
On 28.04.2005 16:55 Walter Roberson wrote
Why not?
Well, that is more authoratative? LOL ... Since when is marketing blabla authoratative?
Go and pick any encyclopaedia and you will find that a switch is a device connecting on layer 2 and a router a device connecting on layer 3.
Arnold
wikipedia.org has been found to give incorrect information in the past. It has not been verified by peers - your 15yo gamer neighbour does not count.
:Well, that is more authoratative? LOL ... Since when is marketing blabla :authoratative?
Vincent made the point that a "switch" is whatever the marketeer is pushing as a "switch". The largest switch manufacturer in the world uses "switch" in ways that are not compatible with your "layer 2" definition. Ergo, Vincent was correct.
What "switch" *should* mean is a different question than what it
-does- mean in industry. And in industry, it no longer means "layer 2".
: Go and pick any encyclopaedia and you will find that a switch is a : device connecting on layer 2 and a router a device connecting on layer 3.
The Oxford English Dictionary contains neither definition.
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.