 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Networking / March 2005upgrading from hub to switch
I have a Linksys cable modem, one-port router, and five-port hub. One of the ports on the hub is shot, and it's my understanding that if I replace it with this switch: http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/Sku.asp?PageType=1&Sku=473031 I should have faster speeds, because switches make for two-way traffic and hubs only do one-way. If I got the switch, I would still need my router, right? > I have a Linksys cable modem, one-port router, and five-port hub. One of > the ports on the hub is shot, and it's my understanding that if I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and hubs only do one-way. If I got the switch, I would still need my > router, right? A switch is only faster if there is significant "talking" between more than two sets of machines on the network at the same time. For a one server network, or a feed from cable or dsl from the internet there is no practical advantage. As for the other some switches may include a router which you should have to not expose yourself[1] over the internet also I would suppose that some would have firewalls as most devices that are called "routers" do today. [1] Here "yourself" means your individual machines hardware addresses.  SignatureGuns don't kill people; automobiles kill people. > > I should have faster speeds, because switches make for two-way traffic > > and hubs only do one-way. If I got the switch, I would still need my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > server network, or a feed from cable or dsl from the internet there is > no practical advantage. Agreed. The only possible counter-point to make is that hubs and switches are about the same cost these days, at least for consumer models. Don't bother with a hub when you can get a switch for about the same price. You may not need a switch today, but it may come in handy in the future. > As for the other some switches may include a router which you should > have to not expose yourself[1] over the internet also I would suppose > that some would have firewalls as most devices that are called "routers" > do today. I would suggest that a hardware firewall is a must these days, even on a home LAN connected via cable or DSL. The all-in-one box seems to make the most sense, one that combines router, switch, firewall, NAT, DHCP, and DNS forwarding. -john- Signature====================================================================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ====================================================================== > I would suggest that a hardware firewall is a must these days, even on > a home LAN connected via cable or DSL. The all-in-one box seems to > make the most sense, one that combines router, switch, firewall, NAT, > DHCP, and DNS forwarding. Depends on how many ports you need. I haven't seen a consumer router with a built-in switch of more than 8 ports (4-5 is typical). If you buy a separate switch, you can get up to 24 ports without spending a whole lot. -- David > I have a Linksys cable modem, one-port router, and five-port hub. One > of the ports on the hub is shot, and it's my understanding that if I > replace it with this switch: > > http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/Sku.asp?PageType=1&Sku=473031 If the hub is Tbase10, and the equipment can handle Tbase100, the switch will be faster, but so would a Tbase100 hub. Walter Bushell gave you some good advice on other technical matters. > I should have faster speeds, because switches make for two-way > traffic and hubs only do one-way. If I got the switch, I would still > need my router, right? Because the router has only one port, and you're using a hub, that implies that you have more than one device on the network, so you will still need a hub or a switch. Alternatively, you can replace the router with a multi-port router. I'd opt for replacing the router because that will mean one less piece of equipment and fewer cables on your desk, or in your equipment cabinet, or wherever you keep the stuff. Just make sure the router has enough ports; most have four, but some have more than that. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > I have a Linksys cable modem, one-port router, and five-port hub. One > > of the ports on the hub is shot, and it's my understanding that if I [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > or wherever you keep the stuff. Just make sure the router has enough > ports; most have four, but some have more than that. Thanks, everyone. The hub is 10/100, so I guess the only advantage to having the switch is the extra ports. What it boils down to is always having to unplug something to use the printer, but that's only when our daughter is home on college break and has to plug in her computer. > Thanks, everyone. The hub is 10/100, so I guess the only advantage to > having the switch is the extra ports. What it boils down to is always > having to unplug something to use the printer, but that's only when > our daughter is home on college break and has to plug in her > computer. Is "extra ports" because one of the ports on the hub is shot? It sounds like you have three computers and one printer--and the fifth port is unused except when your daughter plugs her computer into it. A replacement hub shouldn't cost very much; 5-port switches are less than $50, and hubs cost less than switches. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > Thanks, everyone. The hub is 10/100, so I guess the only advantage to > > having the switch is the extra ports. What it boils down to is always [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > A replacement hub shouldn't cost very much; 5-port switches are less > than $50, and hubs cost less than switches. As John A. Weeks III said, there's not a big different between the cost of a hub and a switch these days, depending on which ones you get. I'd like to get the 8-port switch (only $50 at Staples) eventually instead of getting a brand new 5-port hub. Ports are allocated as follows: 1) hub-to-router port, 2) G4, 3) iMac, 4) inkjet printer via iPrint adapter, 5) dead port. With the switch, I could plug in my daughter's PC and another PC that I use occasionally. > As John A. Weeks III said, there's not a big different between the > cost of a hub and a switch these days, depending on which ones you > get. *nod* > I'd like to get the 8-port switch (only $50 at Staples) eventually > instead of getting a brand new 5-port hub. Ports are allocated as > follows: 1) hub-to-router port, Usually, the uplink port isn't included when counting ports; since most hubs and switches are four ports, when you said 5 ports, I should have realized that you were including the uplink. > 2) G4, 3) iMac, 4) inkjet printer via iPrint adapter, 5) dead port. > With the switch, I could plug in my daughter's PC and another PC that > I use occasionally. *nod* As I suggested earlier, you might want to consider getting a multi-port router; it would cost slightly more than a switch, but you'd have one fewer piece of equipment, and one less cable. What I'd like to see is a cable modem with integrated mutli-port router. I don't know whether they'll ever be made, though; the only combination broadband modems and routers are wireless. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > As John A. Weeks III said, there's not a big different between the > > cost of a hub and a switch these days, depending on which ones you [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I don't know whether they'll ever be made, though; the only combination > broadband modems and routers are wireless. There are actually five ports PLUS the uplink port! Yes, that dream cable modem would be nice. On the other hand, if something goes wrong with one component, you have nothing, whereas with two or three separate boxes, if the router goes bad, at least you have a modem to get on line in an emergency! > if the router goes bad, at least you have a modem to get on line > in an emergency! I hope I'm not the only one who finds the concept of an "internet emergency" to be very funny. <grin> SignatureGarner R. Miller Clifton Park, NY =USA= >> if the router goes bad, at least you have a modem to get on line >> in an emergency! > > I hope I'm not the only one who finds the concept of an "internet > emergency" to be very funny. <grin> I suspect the perspective of someone who uses a network for work is different from that of someone who doesn't. In the latter instance, you're right -- the concept of an "internet emergency" is funny. In the former instance, when 20+ people are on your back faster than sh.t off a shovel, it doesn't seem funny at all :-) Beverly SignatureMany a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer > >> if the router goes bad, at least you have a modem to get on line > >> in an emergency! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In the former instance, when 20+ people are on your back faster than > sh.t off a shovel, it doesn't seem funny at all :-) If that's the situation, the IT department should always have at least one spare on hand just for that contingency. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. >> In the former instance, when 20+ people are on your back faster than >> sh.t off a shovel, it doesn't seem funny at all :-) > > If that's the situation, the IT department should always have at least > one spare on hand just for that contingency. Certainly, but it still takes time to get the spare online, and it is quite amazing how impatient people can be. The standard call is something like, "_My_ internet's down - can you fix it"? And these start trickling in before you've realized there's a problem. Beverly SignatureMany a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer > >> In the former instance, when 20+ people are on your back faster > >> than sh.t off a shovel, it doesn't seem funny at all :-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > something like, "_My_ internet's down - can you fix it"? And these > start trickling in before you've realized there's a problem. And if one component of a chain of components goes down, it takes the same amount of time to get the replacement on line. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > >> In the former instance, when 20+ people are on your back faster than > >> sh.t off a shovel, it doesn't seem funny at all :-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Certainly, but it still takes time to get the spare online, and it is > quite amazing how impatient people can be. And of course you can't even begin to put the spare online until you figure out what died. It might be the router, or the patch panel, or a cable in your walls, or an underground cable accidentally cut by the road repair crew down the street... > I suspect the perspective of someone who uses a network for work > is different from that of someone who doesn't. In the latter instance, > you're right -- the concept of an "internet emergency" is funny. Oh, I've had plenty of calls from clients who use Macs at home for strictly non-work purposes who have considered it an emergency when they were unable to send and/or receive email. SignatureMike Rosenberg <http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida <http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius > >> if the router goes bad, at least you have a modem to get on line > >> in an emergency! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Beverly Or if you have to make a credit card payment stat or get hit with a charge and an increase in interest rate. >;) SignatureGuns don't kill people; automobiles kill people. > > if the router goes bad, at least you have a modem to get on line in > > an emergency! > > I hope I'm not the only one who finds the concept of an "internet > emergency" to be very funny. <grin> Well, if the component fails because of a house fire, and you have to get on line to notify the fire department... SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > Well, if the component fails because of a house fire, and you have to > get on line to notify the fire department... LOL! Now you've got me wondering how one calls 911 via the web... SignatureMike Rosenberg <http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida <http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius > > Well, if the component fails because of a house fire, and you have to > > get on line to notify the fire department... > > LOL! Now you've got me wondering how one calls 911 via the web... Easy. http://www.ip-relay.com. They relay typed messages from a screen to a voice line via human operators. It was intended for blind folks, but it is free, paid for by the US Government, and totally anonymous. So feel free to make a prank 911 call to see if it really works. -john- Signature====================================================================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ====================================================================== >> What I'd like to see is a cable modem with integrated mutli-port router. >> I don't know whether they'll ever be made, though; the only combination [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cable modem would be nice. On the other hand, if something goes wrong > with one component, you have nothing I agree. Having had one ADSL modem and two or three hubs & switches fail, I find it better to have seperate components. I think it makes it easier to debug and fix. Beverly SignatureMany a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer > There are actually five ports PLUS the uplink port! Yes, that dream > cable modem would be nice. On the other hand, if something goes wrong > with one component, you have nothing, whereas with two or three > separate boxes, if the router goes bad, at least you have a modem to > get on line in an emergency! Yeah, that is the problem with all-in-one devices. However, solid-state electronics are very reliable; if they don't fail within a matter days, they're unlikely to fail. My modem and router are both about four years old. Further, the cost of repair is probably higher than the cost of replacement, so if the all-in-one fails, I get to the nearest Frys, Apple Store, Best Buy, Circuit City, Costo, or whatever, and buy a new one--and I'll be back up and running within an hour or two at the latest. And if they all happen to be closed at the time, that means that I'm probably asleep anyway (or it's Christmas). SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > Usually, the uplink port isn't included when counting ports; since most > hubs and switches are four ports, when you said 5 ports, I should have > realized that you were including the uplink. Incorrect. On all the hubs & switches I've seen, the uplink port is included in the count. I've seen 3 kinds of uplink ports: -- Dedicated: Works only as an uplink port. -- Switchable: A slide switch controls whether it works as an uplink port or a regular port. -- Shared port: The uplink port is internally connected to one of the regular ports, so you can use one or the other but not both. On routers, the port that connects to the outside world is the WAN port, not the uplink port. The WAN port isn't included in the count. For example, my Linksys 4-port router has 6 ethernet sockets: 1 WAN, 4 LAN, and 1 uplink port. The uplink port shares LAN port #1, so if a cable is plugged into the uplink port, LAN socket #1 won't work. 5-port hubs & switches are pretty common now; in fact, I think they're more common than 4-port hubs & switches. Think of it as a 4-port router in which the router component has been removed and the WAN port replaced by a fifth LAN port. Again, one of the ports usually doubles as an uplink port. In article <wayne.morris-7827C3.13422013032005@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>, > > Usually, the uplink port isn't included when counting ports; since > > most hubs and switches are four ports, when you said 5 ports, I > > should have realized that you were including the uplink. > > Incorrect. On all the hubs & switches I've seen, the uplink port is > included in the count. And on all the ones I've seen, it's not. > On routers, the port that connects to the outside world is the WAN > port, not the uplink port. What is the difference? SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > In article > <wayne.morris-7827C3.13422013032005@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And on all the ones I've seen, it's not. You've probably only seen the type with a "shared" uplink port. A 4-port hub might *look* like it has 4 ports plus 1 uplink port, but you're looking at *sockets*, not ports. The uplink socket is connected internally to one of those 4 ports, so you have 5 sockets but only 4 ports; you can connect up to 4 cables to it. If you use the uplink socket on a 4-port hub, you're using up one of the 4 ports. That's why I said the uplink port is always included in the count. > > On routers, the port that connects to the outside world is the WAN > > port, not the uplink port. > > What is the difference? A router is a bridge between two different networks; for home users, it bridges between the local network in your home and the internet. The LAN and uplink ports are on the "home network" side. The WAN port is the "internet" side. The purpose of an uplink port is to connect one hub to another using regular (non-crossover) cables: you connect the cable to a LAN port on one hub, and to the uplink port on the other hub. When you do this, all the ports on both hubs are on the same local subnet; there is no firewall or router separating them. In article <wayne.morris-310A0D.23341513032005@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>, > > > On routers, the port that connects to the outside world is the WAN > > > port, not the uplink port. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and uplink ports are on the "home network" side. The WAN port is the > "internet" side. > > > On routers, the port that connects to the outside world is the > > > WAN port, not the uplink port. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > this, all the ports on both hubs are on the same local subnet; there > is no firewall or router separating them. Well, that's the difference between a hub and a router or switch. But an uplink port is the one that takes a signal and distributes it to the other ports in the device; in some cases, it's within the subnet, and in others, it's outside the subnet. What is to prevent someone from taking a router, and connecting its WAN port to one of another router's LAN ports? SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > In article > <wayne.morris-310A0D.23341513032005@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > this, all the ports on both hubs are on the same local subnet; there > > is no firewall or router separating them. Note: Although I wrote "hub", the above paragraph applies equally to switches. Basically, a switch is just an intelligent hub. > Well, that's the difference between a hub and a router or switch. But > an uplink port is the one that takes a signal and distributes it to the > other ports in the device; in some cases, it's within the subnet, and in > others, it's outside the subnet. Wrong on all counts. In a hub, *every* port will take a data packet and redistribute it to all the other ports. The ports are all equals, including the uplink port. The only thing that distinguishes the uplink port from the other LAN ports is that the wires are connected to the socket in a different order, like a crossover cable. A switch is basically the same as a hub, but with some intelligence, so a data packet received on one LAN or uplink port could be distributed to all the other ports, or only certain ports, depending on the packet's intended destination. An uplink port (and whatever you plug into it) is always on the same subnet as the rest of the ports in that hub or switch. It's *never* outside the subnet. In a router with a built-in hub or switch, the uplink port is always on the same subnet as the other LAN ports, and the WAN port is outside that subnet. > What is to prevent someone from taking a router, and connecting its WAN > port to one of another router's LAN ports? Absolutely nothing. It's perfectly legitimate to do that, and it's not unusual in large organizations. What you get are two separate subnets. The LAN & uplink ports of router #1 are one subnet, and the LAN & uplink ports of router #2 are another subnet. And of course router #2's WAN port can be connected to the internet, or to yet another subnet (in the form of a switch, hub, or a third router). If the routers also have firewall features, then router #1's firewall protects subnet #1 from subnet #2, and router #2's firewall protects both subnets from whatever its WAN port is connected to. In article <wayne.morris-3CDB8F.12055314032005@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>, > In a router with a built-in hub or switch, the uplink port is always > on the same subnet as the other LAN ports, and the WAN port is > outside that subnet. Is there such a thing as an uplink port that is not the WAN port on a multiport router? > > What is to prevent someone from taking a router, and connecting its > > WAN port to one of another router's LAN ports? > > Absolutely nothing. It's perfectly legitimate to do that, and it's > not unusual in large organizations. That's what I thought. And doesn't that make the router into a switch? > If the routers also have firewall features, then router #1's firewall > protects subnet #1 from subnet #2, and router #2's firewall protects > both subnets from whatever its WAN port is connected to. If the router is bridged, though, can it still use the firewall? I think that my confusion stems from the fact that a WAN port can be used as an uplink port and/or a misunderstanding of the term "uplink port" on my part. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. In article <wayne.morris-7827C3.13422013032005@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>, > > Usually, the uplink port isn't included when counting ports; since most > > hubs and switches are four ports, when you said 5 ports, I should have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- Shared port: The uplink port is internally connected to one of the > regular ports, so you can use one or the other but not both. There is a fourth kind: auto-sensing. I have a (physically) small switch that has 5 auto-sensing 10/100 Mb ports. I can connect any of them to the router or any other IP device without regard for "gender" of the signal. [snip] SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.