Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

router contains a built-in switch versus router without a ..

Last response: in Networking
Share
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 2:22:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

What's the differences between

router contains a built-in switch
and
router without a built-in switch??

Some routers even have built-in firewall.

I saw many routers in the market has built-in switch, but I don't know
why, and what's the advantages?

please advise. thanks!!
September 15, 2005 10:25:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

jrefactors@hotmail.com wrote:

> What's the differences between
>
> router contains a built-in switch
> and
> router without a built-in switch??
>
> Some routers even have built-in firewall.
>
> I saw many routers in the market has built-in switch, but I don't know
> why, and what's the advantages?
>
> please advise. thanks!!
>
The combination might be cheaper than the two parts separately.
And then it's only one thing to plug in.

It's like stereo equipment. You can buy a receiver, or you can
buy separate amplifier and tuner and connect them together.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 11:03:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

<jrefactors@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126761720.798936.250370@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> What's the differences between
>
> router contains a built-in switch
> and
> router without a built-in switch??

A router with a built-in switch works on the same principles as a standalone
switch. A router with a built in switch can be configured to just be a
switch and not a router by disabling the DHCP server on the router and then
it's just a standalone switch.

http://www.homenethelp.com/web/explain/about-hubs-and-s...

I don't know about routers without a built-in switch.

>
> Some routers even have built-in firewall.

Some routers use a packet filter FW solution like SPI some don't and some
routers use more than SPI a more powerful packet filter.

Most NAT routers for home usage fall into the category of the link below.

http://www.homenethelp.com/web/explain/about-NAT.asp

About firewalls

http://www.more.net/technical/netserv/tcpip/firewalls/

What does a computer, router or appliance running a network/Internet FW do?

http://www.firewall-software.com/firewall_faqs/what_doe...

>
> I saw many routers in the market has built-in switch, but I don't know
> why, and what's the advantages?

see link above about hubs and switches

Duane :) 
Related resources
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 2:17:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In comp.security.firewalls jrefactors@hotmail.com wrote:
> What's the differences between
> router contains a built-in switch
> and
> router without a built-in switch??

If routers are also switches, then they're offering both of these two
functionalities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Router
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch

A router works layer 3, a switch works layer 2 in the OSI reference
model, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model#Description_of_l...

> Some routers even have built-in firewall.

That usually means, that the devices have some extra filtering
functionality.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Es kann nicht sein, dass die Frustrierten in Rom bestimmen, was in
deutschen Schlafzimmern passiert".
Harald Schmidt zum "Weltjugendtag"
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:10:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

CJT wrote:
> The combination might be cheaper than the two parts separately.
> And then it's only one thing to plug in.
>
If I only want to connect to 3 PC in a LAN, the router has 4 ethernet
ports and it can do the job. If I want to connect more than 4 PC, then
I need a switch. This is the scenario of two parts separately.

I still don't understand because router with built-in switch has 4
ports also, how does it function as the combination of router and
switch together?

Here's different types of routers I looked at:

http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?childpagename=...

BEFSR41 EtherFast® Cable/DSL Router with 4-Port Switch V4.0 (4 ports)
BEFSR11 EtherFast® Cable/DSL Router (1 port)
BEFSR81 EtherFast® Cable/DSL Router with 8-Port Switch V3.0 (8 ports)

Another question, if the router has more than 1 port, then it must be
router with built-in switch. Is that correct assumption? Because the
traditional broadband router should only has 1 port?


please advise more... thanks!!
September 16, 2005 7:20:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

jrefactors@hotmail.com wrote:

> CJT wrote:
>
>>The combination might be cheaper than the two parts separately.
>>And then it's only one thing to plug in.
>>
>
> If I only want to connect to 3 PC in a LAN, the router has 4 ethernet
> ports and it can do the job. If I want to connect more than 4 PC, then
> I need a switch. This is the scenario of two parts separately.
>
> I still don't understand because router with built-in switch has 4
> ports also, how does it function as the combination of router and
> switch together?
>

in essence, its switch has 5 ports -- the fifth one hooks (internally)
to the router -- but they say it has 4 ports because those are the
external ones you can see

> Here's different types of routers I looked at:
>
> http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?childpagename=...
>
> BEFSR41 EtherFast® Cable/DSL Router with 4-Port Switch V4.0 (4 ports)
> BEFSR11 EtherFast® Cable/DSL Router (1 port)

I had one of these. I wasn't happy with it. I suspect I wouldn't be
happy with the others, either.

> BEFSR81 EtherFast® Cable/DSL Router with 8-Port Switch V3.0 (8 ports)
>
> Another question, if the router has more than 1 port, then it must be
> router with built-in switch. Is that correct assumption?

yes (theoretically it could be a hub rather than a switch, but I doubt
anybody does that)

Because the
> traditional broadband router should only has 1 port?
>
>
> please advise more... thanks!!
>


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 8:14:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

From: "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net>

< snip >

|
| yes (theoretically it could be a hub rather than a switch, but I doubt
| anybody does that)
|

< snip >

An Ethernet switch can NOT be a hub. Hubs only re-time signals. Hubs are basically
multi-port repeaters. Switches have active electronics to decide what MAC address packet
goes to what port and have a cache to memorize MAC addresses. On an E-switch, each port is
a collision domain. On a hub all ports are on the same collision domain. Therefore a
E-switch can not be a hub and vice versa. This is not theory, it is a fact.

As for the Linksys Routers they are all good. Albeit, I have yet to install a BEFSR41 v4.0

You had one. I have installed many !

I have installed numerous BEFSR41 v1, v2 and v3 Routers. No problems with any.
I am presently using a BEFSR81, a business class Router that support QoS. I have installed
all v1, v2 and v3 but just nearly as many as the BEFSR41 models.

The BEFSR11 is a waste unless one already owns or plans to own a managed Ethernet switch.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 8:29:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

From: <jrefactors@hotmail.com>

|
| CJT wrote:
>> The combination might be cheaper than the two parts separately.
>> And then it's only one thing to plug in.
>>
| If I only want to connect to 3 PC in a LAN, the router has 4 ethernet
| ports and it can do the job. If I want to connect more than 4 PC, then
| I need a switch. This is the scenario of two parts separately.
|
| I still don't understand because router with built-in switch has 4
| ports also, how does it function as the combination of router and
| switch together?
|
| Here's different types of routers I looked at:
|
|
http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?childpagename=...
|
| BEFSR41 EtherFast® Cable/DSL Router with 4-Port Switch V4.0 (4 ports)
| BEFSR11 EtherFast® Cable/DSL Router (1 port)
| BEFSR81 EtherFast® Cable/DSL Router with 8-Port Switch V3.0 (8 ports)
|
| Another question, if the router has more than 1 port, then it must be
| router with built-in switch. Is that correct assumption? Because the
| traditional broadband router should only has 1 port?
|
| please advise more... thanks!!


Get the Linksys BEFSR41. It will allow you to connect four computers (or any TCP/IP
Ethernet devices such as a Print Server or a game box [ XBox, Playstation/2, etc.]) If you
plan on 5 or more computers than you can gert the BEFSR81.

You said "...how does it function as the combination of router and switch together? "

Think of the device as a Black Box. On the input side (WAN) it connects to an Internet IP
address. On the output side (LAN) it fans out to four connections. Inside that Black Box,
the device uses Network Address Translation (NAT) to take a WAN IP address (i.e;
71.254.72.3) and based upon the requests made by a PC on the LAN side will translate the IP
address to a Private Address such as 192.168.1.100.

All you have to know is that the device uses NAT to convert any of the addresses in the
following range (192.168.1.2 ~ 192.168.1.254) to the address obtained from the Internet
side. That's the NAT Router part. On the LAN side you can connect up to 253 computers.
This is obtained by chainingg hubs or Ethernet switches to the LAN side of the Router. The
BEFSR81 already supplies you with 8 ports for up to 8 computers. The BEFSR41 already
supplies you with 4 ports for up to 4 computers. However if you chain an Ethernet switch
(or hub but switches are preferred) than you can multiply the number of computers.

For example; Using the BEFSR41 and a 12-port Ethernet switch that has 1 upload port and 12
usable ports.
Three computers would connect to the BEFSR41. The Ethernet switch's upload port would be
connected to the fourth port on the BEFSR41. Thus with this combination, you can have up to
15 Ethernet devices using the Router.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 8:42:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

jrefactors@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1126883449.566340.26660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
> CJT wrote:
>> The combination might be cheaper than the two parts separately.
>> And then it's only one thing to plug in.
>>
> If I only want to connect to 3 PC in a LAN, the router has 4 ethernet
> ports and it can do the job. If I want to connect more than 4 PC, then
> I need a switch. This is the scenario of two parts separately.
>
> I still don't understand because router with built-in switch has 4
> ports also, how does it function as the combination of router and
> switch together?
>
> Here's different types of routers I looked at:
>
> http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?childpagename=...
> edargs=c%3DL_Product_C1%26cid%3D1118334622279&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon
> %2FVisitorWrapper
>
> BEFSR41 EtherFast® Cable/DSL Router with 4-Port Switch V4.0 (4 ports)
> BEFSR11 EtherFast® Cable/DSL Router (1 port)
> BEFSR81 EtherFast® Cable/DSL Router with 8-Port Switch V3.0 (8 ports)
>
> Another question, if the router has more than 1 port, then it must be
> router with built-in switch. Is that correct assumption? Because the
> traditional broadband router should only has 1 port?
>
>
> please advise more... thanks!!
>

The links below explain connecting two Linksys routers together. It
doesn't matter which ones or if it's wired or a wireless router or any
brand name of routers for home usage like D-link, Netgear, Belkin and
whatever.

The long version

http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/linksys.cfg/php/end...
p_faqid=358&p_created=1084209764
&p_sid=FJfGf8Dh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX
3Jvd19jbnQ9MjM1JnBfcHJvZHM9MSwwJnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0xLjE7Mi51MCZwX2N2PSZwX3
NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfc2NmX2xhbmc9MSZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3N
lYXJjaF90ZXh0PXdpcmVsZXNzIHRvIHdpcmVk&p_li=&p_topview=1

The short version

http://tinyurl.com/9nvq7


You disable the DHCP server on the router, then it's no longer a router
it's a switch. It has the same functionality as if you went out and
brought a dedicated *switch* box and plugged it into the gateway router.

Even when the router is in router mode, it's using the built-in switch
technology for overall speed and performance of the router that the
router wouldn't have without the *switch* technology.

AGAIN

http://www.homenethelp.com/web/explain/about-hubs-and-s...

Duane :) 
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 9:19:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In comp.security.firewalls jrefactors@hotmail.com wrote:
> I still don't understand because router with built-in switch has 4
> ports also, how does it function as the combination of router and
> switch together?

A router is doing packet forwarding in a special way in layer 3, while
a switch is doing frame forwarding in layer 2, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Router
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model#Description_of_l...

> Another question, if the router has more than 1 port, then it must be
> router with built-in switch. Is that correct assumption?

No. A router at least has two network interfaces, because it's a
multi-homed host.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Es kann nicht sein, dass die Frustrierten in Rom bestimmen, was in
deutschen Schlafzimmern passiert".
Harald Schmidt zum "Weltjugendtag"
September 17, 2005 4:42:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
>
> < snip >
>
> |
> | yes (theoretically it could be a hub rather than a switch, but I doubt
> | anybody does that)
> |
>
> < snip >
>
> An Ethernet switch can NOT be a hub.

That's like saying red can't be green. I didn't say a hub could be a
switch. I said a hub could be combined with a router, just as a switch
can be combined with a router. But I doubt anybody does.

Hubs only re-time signals. Hubs are basically
> multi-port repeaters. Switches have active electronics to decide what MAC address packet
> goes to what port and have a cache to memorize MAC addresses. On an E-switch, each port is
> a collision domain. On a hub all ports are on the same collision domain. Therefore a
> E-switch can not be a hub and vice versa. This is not theory, it is a fact.
>
> As for the Linksys Routers they are all good. Albeit, I have yet to install a BEFSR41 v4.0
>
> You had one. I have installed many !
>
> I have installed numerous BEFSR41 v1, v2 and v3 Routers. No problems with any.
> I am presently using a BEFSR81, a business class Router that support QoS. I have installed
> all v1, v2 and v3 but just nearly as many as the BEFSR41 models.
>
> The BEFSR11 is a waste unless one already owns or plans to own a managed Ethernet switch.
>


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
September 17, 2005 4:47:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

David H. Lipman wrote:
<snip>
>
> As for the Linksys Routers they are all good. Albeit, I have yet to install a BEFSR41 v4.0
>
> You had one. I have installed many !

I suppose YMMV. I had problems with mine. This was when they first
came out, and the firmware was pretty unstable (and, IMHO, buggy).
>
> I have installed numerous BEFSR41 v1, v2 and v3 Routers. No problems with any.
> I am presently using a BEFSR81, a business class Router that support QoS. I have installed
> all v1, v2 and v3 but just nearly as many as the BEFSR41 models.
>
> The BEFSR11 is a waste unless one already owns or plans to own a managed Ethernet switch.
>
.... or an unmanaged switch.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 5:54:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

From: "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net>

| David H. Lipman wrote:
>> From: "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
>>
>> < snip >
>>
|>> yes (theoretically it could be a hub rather than a switch, but I doubt
|>> anybody does that)
|>>
>> < snip >
>>
>> An Ethernet switch can NOT be a hub.
|
| That's like saying red can't be green. I didn't say a hub could be a
| switch. I said a hub could be combined with a router, just as a switch
| can be combined with a router. But I doubt anybody does.

That's not what you said.. What you said is above < snip> and that is what I responded to.
Now if you meant something else, your wording made it come out differently.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
September 17, 2005 10:33:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

David H. Lipman wrote:

> From: "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
>
> | David H. Lipman wrote:
>
>>>From: "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
>>>
>>>< snip >
>>>
> |>> yes (theoretically it could be a hub rather than a switch, but I doubt
> |>> anybody does that)
> |>>
>
>>>< snip >
>>>
>>>An Ethernet switch can NOT be a hub.
>
> |
> | That's like saying red can't be green. I didn't say a hub could be a
> | switch. I said a hub could be combined with a router, just as a switch
> | can be combined with a router. But I doubt anybody does.
>
> That's not what you said.. What you said is above < snip> and that is what I responded to.
> Now if you meant something else, your wording made it come out differently.
>
Apparently I was imprecise, leaving the antecedent to "it" dangling and
unclear. Sorry.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 2:12:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

jrefactors@hotmail.com wrote:
> What's the differences between
>
> router contains a built-in switch
> and
> router without a built-in switch??

These days all home broadband routers contain a built-in switch. Now
whether they are good-quality switches vs. standalone switches is a
matter of debate.

In the olden days you had home routers that only had one port for the
WAN side, and one port for the LAN side, and nothing else. That meant
that if you wanted to connect multiple computers to that LAN side, then
you had to buy a seperate hub or switch. I had one of those types of
routers, it was an old Linksys. I had to connect the LAN port to a hub,
and then I could connect computers to the hub.

Now, I hope you know what the difference is between a hub and a switch.
If not, then a switch is just a more sophisticated suped-up hub. Whereas
hubs had a lot of collisions between packets as multiple computers tried
to access the Ethernet simultaneously, the switch took the hub concept
and made it a much more managed experience. It's sort of like the
difference between a road with traffic lights and a road without.

> Some routers even have built-in firewall.

Actually, all home routers have a built-in firewall. It's a natural
feature that emerges from how they work. They can't help but also act as
firewalls. They use a feature called NAT (natural address translation)
which means that they give all computers in the LAN these special fake
IP addresses which can't be seen on the Internet, only the router's own
WAN IP address can be seen -- natural firewall.


> I saw many routers in the market has built-in switch, but I don't know
> why, and what's the advantages?

Avoid having to pay for an additional network component, if everything
is built in. Cheaper to package it all together.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 9:06:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

jrefactors@hotmail.com wrote:
> What's the differences between
>
> router contains a built-in switch
> and
> router without a built-in switch??
>
> Some routers even have built-in firewall.
>
> I saw many routers in the market has built-in switch, but I don't know
> why, and what's the advantages?
>
> please advise. thanks!!

I think you will find that the truth is far far worse than you could
ever imagine.

'home routers' are - i've been told - are not routers. They are NAT
devices. They contain a switch. And a firewall. And a modem.


Regarding 'routers' without a built in switch . May be a real router.
Or it may be a simple thing.
Often so-called DSL Modems like ones made by DLink or Linksys, are
actually 'home routers' with only 1 port. NAT devices without a
switch. so if you want to connect many computers, then attach your own
switch.

Professional proper routers (like Cisco) have many ports, each is a
router interface, each with its own IP. Each is for a connected
network.
No switch.

a NAT Device receiving an incoming packet, does not 'route it', it does
not decide what network to sends the packet to. Only your network is
attached. It just allows it or rejects it. And depending on how it is
configured, sends the packet to whatever computer is attached. Go to
www.whatismyip.com and i you're behind a NAT device, you get the IP
Address of your NAT device. People send packets not to you, but to
your NAT device. Your NAT device does port forwarding to choose which
of your comp on your network to send it to. This is not routing at
all. Routing is about deciding which network to (not which comp and not
just on 1 network) send it to, using routing tables, and the Sending
computer will include the Dest IP of teh network to send to. With NAT,
the sending computer only specifies the NAT device. So the NAT device
is choosing which comp to send it to. With a *Router*, (not a 'home
router'). Packets are not addressed to the Router, they are addressed
to the comp. The Router doesn't choose which local comp to send it to,
it looks at the IP, sees it doesn't have to route it anywhere, since it
is on a directly connected network, and it sends it to the right
computer.


I am a newbie, and will be using real routers this year! But I read
about them. I am just interested in computers and connecting them
together. So, frmo a techie perspective, a real router is more fun.

>From a consumer perspective. If you only need one network (very
likely), then a NAT device ('home router') is fine.

Linksys make good 'home routers'(NAT Devices), get one with a built in
switch. And a hole for a telephone cable - meaning it has a built in
modem. 4 port switch, So you can attach - say - 4 computers. If you
want more you can connect another switch to a port anyway.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 9:47:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> jrefactors@hotmail.com wrote:
> > What's the differences between
> >
> > router contains a built-in switch
> > and
> > router without a built-in switch??
>
> These days all home broadband routers contain a built-in switch. Now
> whether they are good-quality switches vs. standalone switches is a
> matter of debate.
>
> In the olden days you had home routers that only had one port for
> the WAN side, and one port for the LAN side, and nothing else. That
> meant that if you wanted to connect multiple computers to that LAN
> side, then you had to buy a seperate hub or switch. I had one of
> those types of routers, it was an old Linksys. I had to connect the
> LAN port to a hub, and then I could connect computers to the hub.
>
> Now, I hope you know what the difference is between a hub and a
> switch. If not, then a switch is just a more sophisticated suped-up
> hub. Whereas hubs had a lot of collisions between packets as
> multiple computers tried to access the Ethernet simultaneously, the
> switch took the hub concept and made it a much more managed
> experience. It's sort of like the difference between a road with
> traffic lights and a road without.
>
> > Some routers even have built-in firewall.
>
> Actually, all home routers have a built-in firewall. It's a natural
> feature that emerges from how they work. They can't help but also
> act as firewalls. They use a feature called NAT (natural address
> translation) which means that they give all computers in the LAN
> these special fake IP addresses which can't be seen on the
> Internet, only the router's own WAN IP address can be seen --
> natural firewall.
>
>
> > I saw many routers in the market has built-in switch, but I don't
> > know why, and what's the advantages?
>
> Avoid having to pay for an additional network component, if
> everything is built in. Cheaper to package it all together.
>
> Yousuf Khan

It is called Network Address Translation.

--


Travis in Shoreline Washington
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 4:18:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <1127045202.814473.245080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk says...
> I think you will find that the truth is far far worse than you could
> ever imagine.
>
> 'home routers' are - i've been told - are not routers. They are NAT
> devices. They contain a switch. And a firewall. And a modem.

They do not contain a Firewalll.

They do not contain a MODEM.

They do contain a Switch.

They do contain a NAT routing function and also do RIP1 and RIP2, which
makes them routers.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 6:19:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

From: "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan>

|
| They do not contain a Firewalll.
|
| They do not contain a MODEM.
|
| They do contain a Switch.
|
| They do contain a NAT routing function and also do RIP1 and RIP2, which
| makes them routers.
|
| --
|
| spam999free@rrohio.com
| remove 999 in order to email me

Actually...

The MAY contain any or all of these. It all depends on makes and models.
For example the Estwll 327W is both a DSL modem in Bridge mode and a DSL Modem/Router when
placed in Router mode.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 6:21:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

From: "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net>


|
| Actually...
|
| The MAY contain any or all of these. It all depends on makes and models.
| For example the Estwll 327W is both a DSL modem in Bridge mode and a DSL Modem/Router when
| placed in Router mode.
|
| --
| Dave
| http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
| http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
|

That should have been "Westell 327W" not "Estwll 327W" :-(

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 12:52:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

> 'home routers' are - i've been told - are not routers. They are NAT
> devices. They contain a switch. And a firewall. And a modem.
Home routers ARE routers.
They route between the outside network (the network between the home router
and the first router at your ISP) and the internal network (the
non-world-visible home network you have).
They can contain a firewall and indeed some do.
They also implement Network Address Translation (or NAT) and Port Address
Translation (or PAT aka port forwarding) and they contain a cable or DSL
MODEM (whether it is techincally a MODEM, all the manufacturers call it a
MODEM).
They will also usually contain a DHCP server to assign IP addresses to all
the machines on the internal network.

For example in my case, we have a single IP address from the ISP.

My PC has a private address (in the 192.168.1.x range).
Other PCs in this house also have a 192.168.1.x address, as does the router
itself.
So, all the machines on the internal network including the router make up
the 192.168.1.x class C private network.
Then, there is another network with my home router on it plus the router at
the ISP.
The home router routes traffic between the 192.168.1.x network and the
router-ISP network.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 12:53:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Jonathan Wilson wrote:

>> 'home routers' are - i've been told - are not routers. They are NAT
>> devices. They contain a switch. And a firewall. And a modem.
>
> Home routers ARE routers.
> They route between the outside network (the network between the home
> router and the first router at your ISP) and the internal network (the
> non-world-visible home network you have).
> They can contain a firewall and indeed some do.
> They also implement Network Address Translation (or NAT) and Port
> Address Translation (or PAT aka port forwarding) and they contain a
> cable or DSL MODEM (whether it is techincally a MODEM, all the
> manufacturers call it a MODEM).
> They will also usually contain a DHCP server to assign IP addresses to
> all the machines on the internal network.
>
> For example in my case, we have a single IP address from the ISP.
>
> My PC has a private address (in the 192.168.1.x range).
> Other PCs in this house also have a 192.168.1.x address, as does the
> router itself.
> So, all the machines on the internal network including the router make
> up the 192.168.1.x class C private network.
> Then, there is another network with my home router on it plus the router
> at the ISP.
> The home router routes traffic between the 192.168.1.x network and the
> router-ISP network.
Oh and btw, I am currently studying Cisco CCNA network certification so I
DO know what I am talking about :) 
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 12:53:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <432d628b@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, jonwil@tpgi.com.au says...
> Oh and btw, I am currently studying Cisco CCNA network certification so I
> DO know what I am talking about :) 

Except that certification and claiming to have some book learning
doesn't mean anything to fanatics or people that hire IT types :) 

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
September 19, 2005 12:53:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Jonathan Wilson wrote:

> Jonathan Wilson wrote:
>
>>> 'home routers' are - i've been told - are not routers. They are NAT
>>> devices. They contain a switch. And a firewall. And a modem.
>>
>>
>> Home routers ARE routers.
>> They route between the outside network (the network between the home
>> router and the first router at your ISP) and the internal network (the
>> non-world-visible home network you have).
>> They can contain a firewall and indeed some do.
>> They also implement Network Address Translation (or NAT) and Port
>> Address Translation (or PAT aka port forwarding) and they contain a
>> cable or DSL MODEM (whether it is techincally a MODEM, all the
>> manufacturers call it a MODEM).

Given your credentials, you must know that is sometimes, but not always
true. Not all home routers contain what manufacturers call a modem;
that is a separate function.

>> They will also usually contain a DHCP server to assign IP addresses to
>> all the machines on the internal network.

Some also contain PPPoE or similar functionality.
>>
>> For example in my case, we have a single IP address from the ISP.
>>
>> My PC has a private address (in the 192.168.1.x range).
>> Other PCs in this house also have a 192.168.1.x address, as does the
>> router itself.
>> So, all the machines on the internal network including the router make
>> up the 192.168.1.x class C private network.
>> Then, there is another network with my home router on it plus the
>> router at the ISP.
>> The home router routes traffic between the 192.168.1.x network and the
>> router-ISP network.
>
> Oh and btw, I am currently studying Cisco CCNA network certification so
> I DO know what I am talking about :) 


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:57:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <CHeXe.5993$%i1.1647@trnddc09>, DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net
says...
> From: "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan>
>
> |
> | They do not contain a Firewalll.
> |
> | They do not contain a MODEM.
> |
> | They do contain a Switch.
> |
> | They do contain a NAT routing function and also do RIP1 and RIP2, which
> | makes them routers.
> |
> | --
> |
> | spam999free@rrohio.com
> | remove 999 in order to email me
>
> Actually...
>
> The MAY contain any or all of these. It all depends on makes and models.
> For example the Estwll 327W is both a DSL modem in Bridge mode and a DSL Modem/Router when
> placed in Router mode.

That would make it more than a NAT Router then :) 

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 2:31:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

From: "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan>


>>
>> Actually...
>>
>> The MAY contain any or all of these. It all depends on makes and models.
>> For example the Estwll 327W is both a DSL modem in Bridge mode and a DSL Modem/Router
>> when placed in Router mode.
|
| That would make it more than a NAT Router then :) 
|
| --
|
| spam999free@rrohio.com
| remove 999 in order to email me

Well Westell is known for making DSL modems. The product lines are morphing and
assimilating.

It is the Borgs ! ;-)

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 3:39:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

> Given your credentials, you must know that is sometimes, but not always
> true. Not all home routers contain what manufacturers call a modem;
> that is a separate function.
I was unaware that routers exist that do not contain modems (actually, I
probobly knew at one point and just forgot :) 
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 3:39:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

From: "Jonathan Wilson" <jonwil@tpgi.com.au>

>> Given your credentials, you must know that is sometimes, but not always
>> true. Not all home routers contain what manufacturers call a modem;
>> that is a separate function.
| I was unaware that routers exist that do not contain modems (actually, I
| probobly knew at one point and just forgot :) 

Joint modem+Router devices are relatively new. When SOHO Routers first hit the market,
there weren't any joint versions. They were all Routers only or modem only.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 5:52:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

From: "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net>


>>
>> I agree. Greater versitility and no single point of failure.
>>
| No single point of failure? How so?
|

If the Router+modem goes both are dead. If you separate products and the Router dies, you
can still connect at least one PC to the modem.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
September 19, 2005 7:36:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

David H. Lipman wrote:

> From: "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
>
>
>>>I agree. Greater versitility and no single point of failure.
>>>
>
> | No single point of failure? How so?
> |
>
> If the Router+modem goes both are dead. If you separate products and the Router dies, you
> can still connect at least one PC to the modem.
>
So then the modem is a single point of failure.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 8:22:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,alt.comp.networking.routers,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

From: "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net>


| So then the modem is a single point of failure.
|
| --
| The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
| minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Well there is always a weak link in any chain. It is admittedly a weak argument but the
versatility argument isn't.

My father has a Westell 2200 ADSL modem+Router but it is in Bridge Mode and he's using a
Linksys BEFSR41 v3 Router.

I have a White Westell (modem only and have had it for over 5.5 years w/o any failures) and
use a Linksys BEFSR81 v1 Router.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 10:24:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In comp.security.firewalls jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> The NAT device/home router, would still have an IP address, so it
> wouldn't be a switch.

Most of the managed switches I'm using have an IP address.

> The home router would still respond to an ARP request - for its MAC
> address, given its IP address. A switch would not do that.

Most of the managed switches I'm using are doing that.

And for what I can see, most SOHO routers will do just switching
and are managable, if you switch of routing functionality.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Es kann nicht sein, dass die Frustrierten in Rom bestimmen, was in
deutschen Schlafzimmern passiert".
Harald Schmidt zum "Weltjugendtag"
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 10:26:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@verizon.net> wrote:
[No single point of failure]
> | So then the modem is a single point of failure.
> Well there is always a weak link in any chain.

No. Just buy two modems.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Es kann nicht sein, dass die Frustrierten in Rom bestimmen, was in
deutschen Schlafzimmern passiert".
Harald Schmidt zum "Weltjugendtag"
!