Gigabit network for new house

So, I have been planning a new gigabit network for my new house (need to stream a lot of media, wired and wirelessly), and here is what I have come up with. It will have 22 ports throughout the house

Router: Cisco Linksis E4200 simultaneous dual-band gigabit lan
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] %20linksys
Switch: Cisco 24-port gigabit switch
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] -_-Product

Couple more questions:
1. Do I just plug the switch into the first port on the router? Is that how I connect it? I figured the router would do ip and dns and stuff and the switch would be some sort of port multiplier... I really don't know much about switches
2. Any other recommendations for hardware? I know that stuff is expensive but I want a very reliable system.
3. Where can I get a few cheap 4-port switches for use near TVs? Can I just use a 100mb switch for those locations? Or would something like this work:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] _-33122111

P.S. all cat6

you can daisy chain switches all you want and plug any speed switches into each other(unless you're talking about 10gb or specialized switches)

Just take your 22port switch and plug it into where your normally would plug in a computer for your router. There you go.

No for your setup there is no benefit of using anything Cisco branded. Your home simply won't be anywhere near complicated enough. Your not evening planning on using the console commands on it and thus 90%+ of it's value is moot.

Just get a Netgear or D-link switch with the number of ports you need +10% (expansion), put the switch where ever your data room will be, don't use your office or you'll hate yourself later. Run all the drops to that room, make sure you label and crimp / connect them all properly.

The uplink from the Switch to the router isn't special anymore, traditional use would be the last port on the switch to local port on the router.

And BTW, that router isn't even a real router, its a SOHO gateway device. And being a Cisco "linksys" router, the chances of you running DD-WRT are severely crimped. I'd suggest getting a regular D-LINK or Belkin SOHO router and flashing it with DD-WRT for your project, it'll work better in the long run. Wireless functionality is moot as the router will be in a closer somewhere or a utility room. Plan to use a separate wireless access point.

So I think maybe I will do what palladin said and put a cheap wired router in the av room and then have a cat6 going to the office for the wireless router, which is in a much more open location. Another port on the wired router would go to the switch, which would connect to the rest of the ethernet ports in the house. Then would the wired router would do ip and dns and stuffs, right? How would that work? Would I have to do anything special for the wireless network? How do I set that up?

All wire-less routers can function as an access point. You need to read the documentation on it though. And again I highly suggest you put DD-WRT on everything possible. The difference is simple, most vendors sell the software options as part of the base model, similar to what cell phone manufactures do. Modern routers are just mini-PC's with an ARM CPU. Most SOHO router manufactures use a customized Linux OS for their router then hide it all behind that web gui. What DD-WRT has done is great a Linux build that can go on just about any SOHO router and expose full software functionality. You get VLANing, / OSPF / RIP / BGP router, OpenVPN / IPSEC VPN, DHCP Server, DHCP Forwarding, DNS forwarding, several bridging and routing modes and a stateful packet inspection firewall. It puts many options that are only found on the professional routers onto your $80 SOHO router, and the router manufacturers really don't like that. Cisco went so far as to switch to VMS and proprietary hardware to prevent the DD-WRT from working on their SOHO routers (Linksys series).

Do not get that switch lol, your taking cash and burning it. You do not need a managed switch, you won't have multiple distribution layers with Spanning Tree Protocol and VLAN / Port Trunking. I don't see you using Jumbo frames or network management and monitoring software.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6833156294

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6817111031

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6833150077

All three of those will do what you want but at a substantial reduction in cost. A managed switch needs a processor, memory and some form of OS running on it, this increase's the cost but allows you to integrate it into a switched fabric in the network distribution layer. Your distribution layer consists of one to three switch's and one subnet, absolutely no need for the expensive stuff.

Umm no.

"Signal Strength" is limited by the FCC not your router. The radio's on my older Linksys (before cisco) WRT5G v2.0 can be set to 2x it's default transmission strength and still be clear. People have used this to setup very long wireless links using parabolic disk's or other specialized antenna's. That e4200 would have the EXACT same signal reach as the $80 bargin bin 5-year old D-Link.

This isn't a question of the radio's, its the FCC setting a transmission power limit on the 2.4 and 5.0 Ghz ranges. Custom router flash's like DD-WRT let you manually set the transmission power higher then what the FCC limit is, but then your technically breaking the law and could be disrupting transmissions of other people nearby. Hell technically speaking my ancient WRT54G has a higher signal strength then your e4200 by virtue that I can set it to transmit higher then legally allowed, while a factory locked e4200 would not let you set it beyond the legal threshold. And honestly, if you needed a further reach then buy a better antenna, the rubber-duck's that come with SOHO routers suck in general. The older 54G's had standard antenna connectors so it was child's play to plug in a commercial grade antenna and get 250+ feet outdoors from a flat directional antenna. Newer Cisco branded models went to a propitiatory connector, they didn't want you doing that with their home models.

DD-WRT is a software load, not a router type. It's a flash image that overwrites the routers OEM software with one that has more functions and features. It's not necessarily "cheapo" in any way shape or form. Just that SOHO router manufactures tend to use software features to justify their "upper end" routers, its mostly the same hardware but with more "software" and $50~$100 more in the price tag.

Anyhow your going to have to map out where you want wireless signal and plan to put AP's in different locations. Usually AP's have a wired connection back to the LAN but you can use WDS to link multiple AP's in a wireless mesh to extend their range.

Makes absolutely no difference once so ever. "Dual-band" just means it has two radios inside, one for 2.4Ghz and the other for 5.0Ghz. The three antennas are for directional transmissions and multiple path transmission / reception. It doesn't increase the signal strength but rather allows the radio to pick out a better signal path and to reduce background noise.

AP's are just AP's. You configure them as "Wireless Access Point" and they drop the whole routing / firewall / NAT thing. Then you plug one LAN cable into one of their switch ports. Give it a LAN IP address and configure it for DHCP relay to your central DHCP server, or in your case the house router.

As an example here is what I do, although I'm a bit different as I built my own router.

Via-C7 Mini-ITX Router
Eth0 -> WAN Internet Connection
Eth1 -> Local Gigabit Switch

Local Gigabit Switch
Port0 -> Router
Port1 ~ 4 -> PC's inside my office
Port5 -> Netgear Wireless Access Point (Dual Band), was a router but I loaded DD-WRT onto it and configured routing due to me having multiple subnets.
Port7 -> Wall Socket going to apartment LAN distribution.

Living Room LAN DROP -> Linksys WRT-54G Wireless Access Point, loaded with DD-WRT configured for 2.4Ghz

The apartment is already wired with LAN drops in every room, they converge at a single switch inside the wiring panel.

Also I've configured each wireless device to have it's own IP range to prevent packet's from spilling over. Do not do this unless your very comfortable with configuring subnets and OSPF.

"But doesn't simultaneous dual-band mean that more devices can connect at faster speeds? If not, what band is best?"

No, that's marketing talk. Every "dual band" wireless access point must be "simultaneous" due to physics. It's simply not possible to have a single radio listen / transmit on both 2.4Ghz and 5.0Ghz at the same time. Instead what you have is two radio's, one working on 2.4Ghz and the other on 5.0Ghz. The router software bridge's them with your LAN interface to make it look like their all one network, but its three different physical interfaces.

I'd suggest going with 5.0Ghz whenever your devices support it, there is less crowding and less chance of signal disruption. Really you don't need to choose one or the other, their both used at the same time and with different Wifi names.

You can lookup router compatibility on

http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index

Try to find routers with the hardware you want, because DD-WRT replaces the software.

Rly? Insulting the OP without reading any of the thread? Please learn some manners.

1. I already have two WRT320n and they are the best routers I've ever had.
2. Just because one person had a bad experience doesn't mean everyone will. I trust cnet reviews much more than one poster on toms.
3. I kindly asked for recommendations on good routers for dd-wrt, not to be flamed.
4. I never said the e4200 was my last choice. I suggested it based on reviews I have read and asked for advice.