Do I need a switch or router?

[macstatic]

Macstatic,
Has your question been answered? Let me try to answer as clearly as I can

It has now! That was a very clear explanation indeed.
It's strange that my current router doesn't work properly (no WAN address on my computer, just LAN) when I connect the modem into the WAN port of the router but just plug the modem into one of the 4 LAN ports. I can't even access the web setup of the router by entering 192.168.1.1 in my browser and I've tried plugging it directly to my Mac using both the LAN and WAN ports. Even resetting the router won't help, so I assume it's partly dead as all that worked before.

Yes, I've heard several people say that most wireless routers can have its wireless capabilities disabled, but can I trust that 100%? I prefer avoiding (if possible) wireless devices or at least not using them more than needed which goes especially for devices that stay switched on 24/7 -with a cabled router I'd be sure I agree that it's hard to find non-wireless routers nowadays though. The Cisco RVS4000 is discontinued as pointed out here, but I see several stores selling them and it gets less complaints than the Netgear FVS318G which I first came across. Both feature 10/100/1000 speed and I haven't found any other cabled routers featuring anything but 10/100 (same as my current router).
So what exactly do the 10/100 or 10/100/1000 numbers refer to? I assume the first number (10) is for accessing the Internet, but in my case where I have a 12 Mb/s connection from my broadband Internet provider; am I wasting money as routers can't handle speeds faster than 10 Mb/s?
With a 10/100 router (such as the one I currently have) I assume it means that I can transfer files between computers in my home up to 100 Mb/s, but what does the 100 and 1000 (in "10/100/1000") mean? That the router can choose between two different standards (100 Mb/s for compatibility with connecting to older switches and 1000 Mb/s for newer gear)?
I don't transfer huge amounts of files between the computers, and not that often, so having a 10 times faster speed than my current 10 Mb/s isn't all that critical for me, but being able to surf the web at optimal speed is (after all I'm paying my provider for it).



Rwwest7: I always thought it was called a cable modem, but I may be wrong. In any case it's a box which plugs into the cable-TV wall socket and is labelled Thomson (Technicolor) TCM-471. When the computer is plugged directly into that device it gives me an Internet IP address (not 192.xxx or 10.xxx).
So according to your explanation I would need a router.

 

[Alameda]

1) I assume it's partly dead as all that worked before.

2) I've heard several people say that most wireless routers can have its wireless capabilities disabled, but can I trust that 100%?

3) So what exactly do the 10/100 or 10/100/1000 numbers refer to?

4) Am I wasting money as routers can't handle speeds faster than 10 Mb/s?

5) I don't transfer huge amounts of files between the computers, and not that often, so having a 10 times faster speed than my current 10 Mb/s isn't all that critical for me, but being able to surf the web at optimal speed is (after all I'm paying my provider for it).


6) I always thought it was called a cable modem

I will try to tackle all of those:

1) I assume it's partly dead, and that the cost of a replacement is lower than the aggravation.

2) If you turn off the WiFi radio of a router, the radio is powered off.

3) The 10/100 and 10/100/1000 numbers refer to the Ethernet speed: 10 mbit/second, 100 mbit, or 1000 mbit. These are also called 10BaseT, 100BaseT, and Gigabit Ethernet, respectively. 100BaseT is also called "Fast Ethernet."

4) No, for optimal web surfing, you should have 100 or 1000 speed Ethernet. Do not get a 10 mbit-only device (At any rate, I don't think they make 10 mbit-only devices anymore).

5) For the small added cost, Gigabit Ethernet is worthwhile, but it is not a "must-have" for you.

6) The device you have is a cable modem. It has a Gigabit Ethernet port (which will work fine with either 100 or 1000 connection). It also has routing built-in. In theory, an Ethernet switch will work, but I would advise against that based on my experience with products like this. It's likely to be more reliable to get a product from Linksys or a good brand which can assign the IP addresses in your home, and it will then use a single IP address from the cable modem. This is called "double-NATT'ed", and it theoretically creates a performance problem, but very cheap cable modems like this often have performance problems with multiple clients and network address translation. As a rule, I avoid this and just use a good quality product to manage the home network side.

A good product would be a Linksys E900 or E1200, which both have four 100BaseT Ethernet ports, plus the WAN port. It also has WiFi, which you can turn off. For additional Ethernet ports, you could look at a Linksys SE2800 (8-ports) or SE1500 (5-ports). You can get the E1200 plus SSE1500 for much less than $100 USD. If there's another brand you prefer, I can check on what they have that are comparable. I've had good results with Linksys and NetGear, and some extremely bad results with Belkin.

 

[mizzouxc]

I think comments like these are only adding to his confusion.

Posts like these are only written by people who don't understand the technology.

 

[sjinsjca]

Meh. VoIP consumes barely any bandwidth - 30 to 90 Kbps. That's just a few percent of most Internet connections these days, and a QoS home router isn't necessary to make it work well.

It's not a bandwidth thing, it's a priority thing. The router must never delay VoIP packets even for a few milliseconds. QoS ensures that won't happen. It makes a difference in our situation, and with 12Mbps down and 3Mbps up, you wouldn't expect it to. But it does.

 

[belvdr]

6) The device you have is a cable modem. It has a Gigabit Ethernet port (which will work fine with either 100 or 1000 connection). It also has routing built-in.

Minor correction (more of an FYI), cable modems are bridges. Therefore, they function at layer 2 and do not route traffic.

If you have a cable modem / router combo, obviously that changes things a bit.

 

[mwkingsandiego]

I would use a router and a switch. Typically a router will have one port on the internet side, and 4 ports on LAN side. (At least if you have a Linksys or other equivalent brand.) The purpose of the switch is increase the number of ports on the LAN (for example a 8 port switch). For example this is what I use.

You NEED a router as your gateway to the world. I have essentially the same set up as in this diagram with an Airport Extreme as the router and it is very fast (capable of >20mbs to the internet) and extremely reliable. FWIW the Airport was much faster as shown in this diagram with the separate switch as shown rather than plugging equipment directly into the Airport. If you have a slower internet service, maybe 5mbs, that may not matter.

----------

I've read that routers are for situations with different devices while switches are used for connecting several of the same devices to the Internet. I assume that means you need a router if you want to connect for instance a computer, a networking printer, a VOIP phone adapter, a streaming video device, an Internet radio box etc. all together to the same Internet connection.
And for connecting, say, only several computers to the Internet you only need a hub. Is this correct?

NONE of what you have read is correct - routers control the flow of data between your local LAN and the 'outside' internet. Switches simply connect devices together for local networks; really doesn't matter what types of devices are switched


johnmacward: I'm trying to troubleshoot my existing router and am starting to wonder if the cables might be to blame. As far as I remember, RJ-45 ethernet cables come in two flavors: straight or crossed. Could this be the cause? (I'm not sure what I have, but I could get my meter out and check).

Most equipment sold in the last few years will 'autosense' which type of cable is used and adjust itself accordingly. Unlikely that this is your problem.

 

[macstatic]

Having been busy lately I've been putting the router purchase off. Furthermore, all the negative comments in various "review" sites for the Cisco RVS-4000 has me worried. People complain that it's underpowered, very slow (unless all the security functions have been turned off -not an option I'd like to go for), needs to be restarted/reset every few days or weeks and doesn't even do what it's supposed to (VPN and other things too technical for me too understand other than it supposedly doesn't deliver).

Should I be worried and look elsewhere or are most of the complaints due to people not being competent enough to configure it (due to it being a more advanced business device and not a "plug and play" consumer device which is easier to use) meaning it's most likely a good buy?
There are lots of 10/100 wired routers which get much better reviews, but again I don't know if that's mainly due to them being "consumer" devices, and it would be nice to transfer files to other computers in the network 10x faster with a 100/1000 router.