 |  | dibbb
join:2003-09-19
 ·Time Warner VOIP
| Re: Duh! said by OSIU  :Maybe they should make it with a toaster and a fridge built in too!  My WebStar gets hot enough I bet it could make toast...
But personally, and I may change my mind later, but I like having a separate router, especially for my small-business LAN. I've had my ISP-provider modem fail a few times, and at least with a separate router I can still use the LAN functions. | |
| | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Duh! said by dibbb :said by OSIU :Maybe they should make it with a toaster and a fridge built in too! My WebStar gets hot enough I bet it could make toast... But personally, and I may change my mind later, but I like having a separate router, especially for my small-business LAN. I've had my ISP-provider modem fail a few times, and at least with a separate router I can still use the LAN functions. Unless you're running a multi-segment network, why would you need a router for LAN traffic??
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| | | | radarman
join:2005-06-01
Odenton, MD
| Re: Duh! One word - NAT. Do you plan to connect more machines than you have leased IP addresses? If so, you need a LAN with a router.
Alternately, would YOU like control over what machine is assigned a certain IP address? Guess what - you can't, unless you run your own DHCP server - which no ISP is going to want to see. So, you are back to needing a router.
It isn't just multi-segment networks that need routers, (though strictly speaking, most home networks ARE multi-segment), but any network where you need more flexibility and control over your network. | |
| | | | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Duh! said by radarman :One word - NAT. Do you plan to connect more machines than you have leased IP addresses? If so, you need a LAN with a router. If the MODEM has failed, what are you NATing??
said by radarman :Alternately, would YOU like control over what machine is assigned a certain IP address? Guess what - you can't, unless you run your own DHCP server - which no ISP is going to want to see. So, you are back to needing a router. And this relates how to the benefits of having a router separate from a MODEM in the event of a MODEM failure? As an aside, DHCP does not require a router.
said by radarman :It isn't just multi-segment networks that need routers, Um... Care to explain that? The sole purpose of a router is to move packets from one segment to another. If you have single-segment network, you don't need a router.
said by radarman :(though strictly speaking, most home networks ARE multi-segment) Really?? Discounting the WAN IP, how can you possibly make this statement?
said by radarman :but any network where you need more flexibility and control over your network. Again, all that a router does is move packets from one network segment to another (and, optionally, doing P/NAT). If you want DHCP services, you don't need a router. If you want firewall services, you don't need a router (given that one can set up a filtering bridge device or use client-side software firewalls). So, how does having avrouter provide you with flexibility and control over a network (that you can't get through other means), particularly a network with a flat/unsegmented topology?
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| | | | | | radarman
join:2005-06-01
Odenton, MD
| Re: Duh! Ok, lets start over. I took some liberties because I assumed we were talking about CONSUMER hardware - not commercial - and that we were talking about CONSUMER ISP's. Please keep that in mind.
Strictly speaking, you are correct - a pure router (like your standard Cisco) does nothing but move packets from one domain to another. You do not need a pure router if you simply lease IP addresses for each machine on your LAN - since you don't really have a LAN, just an extension of the WAN in your house. It is theoretically possible to lease a subnet from your ISP, in which case you MIGHT need a pure router, depending on the ISP's configuration, but you WOULD NOT need NAT (since you have a one to one mapping of addresses available).
As far as I know, no CONSUMER ISP does this. Even if they did, these are not safe networks for most CONSUMERS, as they expose every machine to the public Internet explicitly. Even if I only had one machine, I would still hide it behind NAT as a limited first line of defense.
Also, most consumers with multiple computers do not (or can not) lease a subnet, and few lease enough addresses for each machine - they get one IP address, and then masquerade behind it using NAT. This comprises the vast majority of "home networks"
These networks are, by definition, "multi-segment". You have a private network in their house, typically assigned a 192.168.x.x subnet, and an access point to the public network. Again, you are technically correct - the term for the required hardware is "NAT Proxy" - a "router" is NOT required for this configuration, as private address aren't routable anyway. However, it is still multi-segment in that you can't directly communicate from your LAN to the WAN without some added trickery.
To make things more interesting, most people incorrectly denote ALL "Internet Gateways" as "routers", even though not all Internet Gateways can route. (most can, but few actually use the ability) The vast majority of boxes, such as the Linksys and Netgear boxes, are NAT capable routers - but the vast majority of customers assign the LAN a non-routable address space - making them overgrown NAT proxies. Typically, these consumer "routers" will also support DHCP, limited local DNS (on some models), and a few other services. Many times, they will interfere with other internal machines offering the same services.
There are several things I do not like about my ISP having control of this machine.
One - they could enforce a NAT free network by simply turning off the ability remotely. I'm sure they would love the increased revenue of charging a fee for every box on their network - much the way they used to charge for every TV in your house. The problem isn't so much the fee, though; but the fact that now your network is exposed on the public Internet. At least with NAT, you have to do something stupid to get rooted.
Two - they could permanently enable or disable services which might be disruptive to my LAN. If I am depending on certain network services to be present - I want those services explicitly under MY control. I do not want my ISP futzing with them, or worse, locking me out.
Lastly, if the machine fails, all of the services it provided would be gone with it - for the duration of the time it takes the ISP to service or replace it. At least in my neck of the woods, that involves a trip to the Comcast service center during business hours, or an irritating, time-wasting service call.
Now, most of these concerns are related to ISP leased equipment - but there is still the fact that these machines are not user-serviceable. I cannot simply pull the flash memory out, and drop it in another machine quickly. Even if I owned the box outright, its failure would still entail the time it takes to ship a new one - and I would still have to recreate all of my configuration data, unless by some miracle, I had either backed it up (which is difficult on most consumer "routers") or the machine was busted in some way that still allowed access to the administrative console.
I dunno - at least for me, my LAN is equally as important as the WAN connection. I don't ever save to my local hard drive, instead using a network server; printing is done over the network, etc. I don't want all of that going down because of one box.
My current setup is a Motorola SB5100 cable modem, attached to a Pentium III based PC running FreeBSD & ipfilter/ipnat. While this machine is a single point of failure (it runs the NAT proxy/router, firewall, DHCP, internal DNS, NTP, HTTP proxy, etc) - the machine is entirely under my control. If it fails, I can drop the hard disk in another machine and be up and running in under 20 minutes. If the hard disk fails, I can recover from a backup file on another machine or from a CD-ROM.
THAT is why I would avoid these boxes like the plague. | |
| | | | 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | He is probably using it as his LAN switch as well, since many if not most/all consumer level "routers" have a 5 port switch on them as well.
K. | |
| | | | dibbb
join:2003-09-19
·Time Warner VOIP
edit:
August 22nd, @02:09PM
| said by nixen :said by dibbb :said by OSIU :Maybe they should make it with a toaster and a fridge built in too! My WebStar gets hot enough I bet it could make toast... But personally, and I may change my mind later, but I like having a separate router, especially for my small-business LAN. I've had my ISP-provider modem fail a few times, and at least with a separate router I can still use the LAN functions. Unless you're running a multi-segment network, why would you need a router for LAN traffic?? -tom As explained by other posters, and I thought this was obvious, my router, which is a D-Link 624, also serves as my switch (along with another attached switch) for my LAN.
If my WAN or ISP connection fails, I can still access resources on my LAN such as networked drives and printers.
Edit: and reading your reply to radarman, I can tell you know a lot about networking, but I think you're just way over-thinking this one...
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | radarman
join:2005-06-01
Odenton, MD
| Re: Duh! Ironically, I did the same thing - I was aiming my post at the average user who just has a Linksys or Netgear router that "does it all". I suppose that's what I get for "dumbing it down"
My own home network looks very similar to yours. I have two switches instead of one, because most of my network equipment is in a closet, while the file server and my workstation are in a bedroom with only 1 ethernet jack available.
I have a Motorola SB5100 CM attached to a FreeBSD machine which handles most network services, as well as serving as an Internet Gateway / NAT proxy. That machine is (obviously) multi-homed, with the second connection going to a Dlink DES3624i 24-port 10/100 switch (managed) and a third PLIP connection available for an administrative uplink. (I have an old 386 laptop for emergencies, since the router has no keyboard or CRT)
All of this is powered by a APC SmartUPS - which also supports the Vonage ATA, and segments of the home automation system. The SmartUPS has a network management card (9617) for remote monitoring.
The DES3624i is linked to my office, where a second switch, a DES3624 slave, handles my private workstation (well, private in the sense my wife doesn't mess with it), the file server, and another SmartUPS. This is also my "lab", so machines I happen to be working on are plugged into this switch.
The file server is capable of coming online as a backup for DNS/DHCP during a failure, but isn't normally available. There is little need for NTP, or other services, if the network connection is down - so these are not replicated. Besides, the UPS for the file server doesn't last as long as the UPS for the network gear. The only time it comes into play is when the main "router" is down for service.
The file server provides the rest of my network services - such as SMB/NFS mounts, FTP services, and incoming secure shell connections. (ipnat handles the forwarding)
My LAN uses internal DNS & DHCP, so guests simply have to plug in - and immediately receive an IP address in a special range and a DNS entry. I can also refer to my machines by "short" name, so starting a secure shell session to the router involves "ssh router". As an added bonus, my gateway serves as a Stratum 2 NTP server for any machine on the local network which knows about it. (My windows/*nix boxes all point to it).
I do not run wireless, as I was fortunate enough to have a say in the wiring during construction. I have 10/100 ethernet in every major room (bedrooms, living room, kitchen, etc.) I don't even own any 802.11 equipment - so I don't know if my neighbors do.
I also run a HTTP proxy via SSH. I can tunnel through to the file server, which forwards back to the router, which runs the proxy. This protects the router, as it doesn't allow external access to itself directly. It works great for everything except FTP - but that isn't a problem.
This allows me to bypass proxies on networks that allow unrestricted access on at least one port. Yes, I do have to know a bit about the network in advance - but this isn't typically a problem, as I only explicitly allow access to networks I might conceivably attempt to connect from. | |
| | | | | | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Duh! Heh... sounds like my network until the first summer where the combined equipment and A/C current draw drove my electricity bill into the mid-$300's. Turned off one of my E250s (and 14 hard drives) and several Ultra IIs. Electric bills teach the value of consolidation. Even considered replacing my SPARCstation 10 router with a SOHO device that would draw less current.
At this point, what I really need, is to replace some of the older, lower-capacity hard drives with fewer, higher-capacity drives (not like I'm doing OLTP).
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| | 
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs: | If you want a toaster oven, then get a Pentium 4 Prescott computer.
--
Posting .sig | |
| | 
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by OSIU :Less wires and plugs with an all-in-one? Sounds great to me! I need at least one socket to plug my light in. I'd rather have a bunch of dedicated devices that all do their jobs really well than have one device that does them all just acceptably.
Plus, if something fails, you've lost the whole thing. With separate devices for various functions (router, switch, AP, VOIP, e.t.c.) you don't have to worry about that, and you get much more room for customization.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 8800+ messages currently using 268 MB (11%) of my 2442 MB | |
| 
Crow 30
@adelphia.net | To many devices I already have three devices on my desk (Modem, Router, SR Gizmo)I would love to combine them all into one unit. Although I do like seeing all the blinky lights..hehe | |
| kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL
clubs: | As long as it's well tested.. and reliable- unlike some of the crap the major manufacturers all too often release upon the masses. You get more points of failure as you add functions and complexity, so they'd really have to get it right before I'd bite. | |
| garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY | News Flash! Modem sales drop as DSL modem rise! This is called the march of progress.
The same guys that sells the DSL modem most likely also makes the combo box. | |
| 
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
edit:
August 22nd, @11:49AM
| Why would they be taking a hit? They make those devices too. The same makers (eg Westell) to make the DSL modems also are making the DSL all-in-one's.
If it's 'stand alones' taking the hit, so what. That's not news. Black and white TV's took a hit too and it's of no consequence to the industry. People still watched TV and TV makers still made TV's. | |
| | 
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
edit:
August 22nd, @12:04PM
| No "Residential Gateways" for ME! After the fiasco I had with FIVE 2Wire 1000S Residential Gateways, PLEASE GOD NO!!! 
I'd much rather have a separate modem and a router of MY choice. | |
| | 
tapeloop
Long live Ollie.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| Re: Why would they be taking a hit? said by oliphant :If it's 'stand alones' taking the hit, so what. That's not news. Black and white TV's took a hit too and it's of no consequence to the industry. People still watched TV and TV makers still made TV's. Closer to the point: TV-VCR/DVD combos haven't really impacted standalone (plasma/WEGA/flatscreen/projection) TV sales.
As a general rule (and a lesson from my parents), I myself buy discrete devices whenever possible. I'd rather have two separate devices break at different times than one device break and kill the functionality of whatever it was combined with. 
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. | |
| 
TechSponge
join:2001-05-14
Hillside, NJ | No Thanks...Really...NO, I DONT WANT IT! Id rather stay with seperate devices. I like to be able to choose my OWN SPI Firewall and routers and switches and Access points for myself and my clients. | |
| | 
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| Re: No Thanks...Really...NO, I DONT WANT IT! said by TechSponge :Id rather stay with seperate devices. I like to be able to choose my OWN SPI Firewall and routers and switches and Access points for myself and my clients. Ditto.:D
--
Firefox forever!
»zoom314.blogspot.com/
»mysite.verizon.net/zoom314/ | |
| | | cbrock
join:2003-03-12
Union City, CA
| Re: No Thanks...Really...NO, I DONT WANT IT! So to follow your logic, then it would be better if there were even more separation of components...such as separating the 4-port hub from the router as well as the wireless functions:
DSL modem + NAT router + 4-port switching hub + wireless transceiver. That would be four separate boxes.
I was using a SpeedStream 5360 + D-Link DGL-4300 gaming router. Now I use an ActionTec GT704WG all-in-one DSL modem, 4-port NAT router with 802.11G. And you know what? Transit delay (ping) is even lower since I've effectively reduced all IP connections by one hop.
Also the ActionTec has an additional USB 1.1 port for Windows PCs which I use a fifth LAN connection. It has about 9% lower peak throughput compared to the 100mb Ethernet ports (4.8mb/s vs 5.1mb/s), but it is an added convenience. | |
| | | |
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| Re: No Thanks...Really...NO, I DONT WANT IT! said by cbrock :So to follow your logic, then it would be better if there were even more separation of components...such as separating the 4-port hub from the router as well as the wireless functions: DSL modem + NAT router + 4-port switching hub + wireless transceiver. That would be four separate boxes. I was using a SpeedStream 5360 + D-Link DGL-4300 gaming router. Now I use an ActionTec GT704WG all-in-one DSL modem, 4-port NAT router with 802.11G. And you know what? Transit delay (ping) is even lower since I've effectively reduced all IP connections by one hop. Also the ActionTec has an additional USB 1.1 port for Windows PCs which I use a fifth LAN connection. It has about 9% lower peak throughput compared to the 100mb Ethernet ports (4.8mb/s vs 5.1mb/s), but it is an added convenience. If You have a router, Then why would You want to duplicate the 4 ports on It with a Hub? I mean unless You have 6 or 7 computers It seems rather silly.
--
Firefox forever!
»zoom314.blogspot.com/
»mysite.verizon.net/zoom314/ | |
| | | | | dibbb
join:2003-09-19
·Time Warner VOIP
| Re: No Thanks...Really...NO, I DONT WANT IT! I've got a switch (smart packet-switching hub basically) attached to my 4-port router because I have 10 computers hanging off it, for my small business, not at home...
So yeah, in some cases people do that, like you said.
| |
| | | | | kdhamann
join:2003-11-08
Medina, OH
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| Not all routers have a 4 port switch included. I still use a DLink DI701 "router / internet gateway" which has *one* ethernet LAN port. It goes into a 8 port switch with a 4 port + uplink downstream. Computers + network printers add up quick. I have 3 or 4 routers with built in switches, but "if it ain't broke..." | |
| | inzomniaq
join:2003-01-12
Houston, TX
| The first place that I live at that had broadband was an apartment complex (»www.waldenweb.com) that leased its own T3 through TW Telecom. Each of the apartments were wired with CAT 5 and had RJ45 jacks. So no cable or DSL modem was necessary. Just an Ethernet card and cable and a router if you so desired. So I bought a NATting SOHO router.
At the time I purchased the router, 3-4 switched ports was the max you could have on the router, so another switch was necessary.
The next place I live at had only DSL as a broadband option, so while I had the option of buying a combination device, I couldn't justify the extra expense as I already had a SOHO router and another switch. So I opted for the modem only.
I have Road Runner cable (until I'm comfortable with my DSL service) at the place where I'm at now (a different complex at »www.waldenweb.com .) So this time I opted for the cable modem only device since I still have SOHO routers and switches.
I guess one syptom of moving around and going with different providers is that you seem to accumulate additional gear one or two pieces at a time. I started accumulating before combo modem-SOHO-routers were widely available and just didn't see the need to replace everything with a single combo gadget since what I have is already working. | |
| b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| The problem with all-in-one devices The problem with all-in-one devices is they never seem to do all the functions as well as separate devices do.
Like now you can get a crappy cell phone, that's also a crappy camera, crappy PIM, a crappy MP3 player, a crappy text messenger, a crappy walkie-talkie, and a really crappy web browser all in one crappy little package. | |
| | 
cow116
Cisco Kid
Premium
join:2003-03-10
Carmel, IN
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: The problem with all-in-one devices said by b10010011 :The problem with all-in-one devices is they never seem to do all the functions as well as separate devices do. Like now you can get a crappy cell phone, that's also a crappy camera, crappy PIM, a crappy MP3 player, a crappy text messenger, a crappy walkie-talkie, and a really crappy web browser all in one crappy little package. Does it now come with toilet paper to wipe up some of the crap? | |
| | 
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
·Vonage
| said by b10010011 :The problem with all-in-one devices is they never seem to do all the functions as well as separate devices do. Bingo.
Add firmware issues into the mix and you usually have fixes for problems in one area that create other problems in other areas.
Just give me ONE device that does what it's designed to do . . . and does it exceptionally well.
--
Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
| 
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| Sounds like a poll question Im a separates man myself. I don't want the whole schebang going down at the same time. Easier to diagnose and also cheaper to replace sometimes when things can be separated out.
My stuff is generally in my basement so I don't have a clutter issue. Sometimes you cant get separates though and I guess cause some things are so easy to do in software that they are coming almost free.
I have 2 routers both of which do wifi. But I use 1 as a wifi AP and other as a router. So i would be even more separate if I could. I am NOT an all-in-one type of guy. And in the automotive industry this was done purely to reduce manufacturing cost to the direct detriment of service costs. Hope same does not happen in computer industry.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
| | 
jansm38
Vn800-B
Premium
join:2003-05-19
Blackwood, NJ
| Re: Sounds like a poll question I'm all for separate components in a network. I believe you will get better performance from a device that has only one function over a device that is trying to do 3 or 4 things at once, and like has been mentioned, there is the diagnostic / repair aspect to consider. Just like a highend stereo is made from a separate tuner and amplifier plus the peripherals, network components should be separate. An all-in-one device would be ok for mom and pop that can barely turn on their PC, but for anyone that has any experience they would likely want separate components. | |
| aaron12345
join:2002-12-17
Falls Church, VA
| not that it would ever happen... but! You know what would be neat. Since most people have multiple computers anyways - when someone gets dsl or cable - the modem just has 4 or 5 ethernet jacks plug and go and would just act as a switch. The nat and dhcp would be performed at the isps boxes in co. I mean for dslr users it would be a nightmare... but for the average joe who just wants web it would probably make configuration even easier! | |
|
nobody_really
@gte.net
| Err problem with the numbers? Err problem with the number?
DSL modem revenue from $1.6 billion in 2005 to just over half a million in 2009. in that same time period, residential gateway revenue should grow from $3.9 billion in 2005 to $3.9 billion in 2009
So it is going to grow from 3.9 B to 3.9 B in 4 years? Pretty flat growth. | |
| nguyen27
join:2003-05-14
Quincy, MA
| NO NO for the combo Under no circumtance I'll be buy a combo box of any kind, I kinda like to have separate thing, modem itself, Router itself, even wireless. My setup is like this
Verizon - Westel Modem - Wired Netgear router connect to the LAN - and a netgear wireless AP just serving wireless clients. | |
| Roop
join:2003-11-15
Ottawa, ON
·Internet Telephone..
| spof my biggest problem with an all in one is a single point of failure. if my modem fries, atleased i'll still have lan/wlan connectivity. my isp replaces my modem and i'm good to go.
if i purchased my own all in one device, when it fries i have nothing and i'd have to replace it on my own.
all in one is a jack of all trades and a master of none. i'd rather have a few specialized devices than one sloppy one.
the isp here, bell canada has already lauched wireless router/modem combos. the modem part is very good. the wireless access point has limited security and the router point has limited configurability. | |
| movedor
join:2002-02-15
Redmond, WA
| Combo eventually This debate resembles the audiophiles vs. consumers debate in the audio system domain. Consumers want things that are simple, ready to use and cheap. For them there are HTIBs, which used to be crappy stuff, but nowadays virtually every audio manufacturer has a offering, and you can find very high quality HTIB. Audiophiles, on the other end of the spectrum, want flexibility, highest quality and put as money into it as they can. They want separates, they mix and match, they research and spend numerous hours tweaking the system to perfection. For them a HTIB will never be good enough.
In the internet access domain, eventually combos will improve and be good enough for vast majority of the consumers. Most likely there will be people out there, like many of the knowledgeable members of this forum, who will favor the flexibility or their own separates, just like audiophiles do.
Today I have 4 little boxes to provide my internet access: cable modem, VoIP router, 11g access point, 11a access point. I need both 11a and 11g access points because I still have 1 PC in the house that can only do 11g. I live in high-density neighborhood and there is strong interference from cordless phones in 2.4GHz and other 11g networks, so 11a is my salvation at 5GHz. I also have a UPS for all these plus the answering machine so power interruptions won't leave me without any phone service.
I would gladly replace all this with one unit, as far performance and reliability is equal or better than what I have. Probably 11a is out of the question now, maybe not due Microsoft push in 11a for media center extenders? | |
| | | |
|
|
Attack of the Gateway
·