router, hub, and switch

Xtizu · Post by **Xtizu** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:20 pm

yeah its cable

Xtizu · Post by **Xtizu** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:21 pm

hub is lynksys nh1005 v2.0

Xtizu · Post by **Xtizu** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:01 pm

Ddrak wrote:Assuming Cable/DSL and a limited need for functionality, I recommend the Linksys BEFSR41.

Dd

why a router? i only have 50 bucks to spend.

Bahd Zoolander · Post by **Bahd Zoolander** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:51 pm

Unless you can get more than 1 IP address from your cable company you'll need some sort of NAT device to use both computers on the internet. You could use internet connection sharing in Windows XP, but it's pretty crappy. A hardware NAT device also gives you an extra layer of protection between you and the Internet. You can get the BEFSR41 for under $50 here: http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products ... 55&_LOC=US

Xtizu · Post by **Xtizu** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:12 pm

well since i had a hub, and i was able to connect 4 computers to the interbutt at once, i think my cable company probobly gives out more than one ip address at a time

Bahd Zoolander · Post by **Bahd Zoolander** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:54 pm

What happened to your hub? If you were happy with it why not just get the same one again?

Xtizu · Post by **Xtizu** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:04 pm

turns out the problem was avg. i dont know how but it wouldnt let me connect to the internet at the same time my windows 98 computer was on. and why my windows 98 comp had superiority over my winxp comp i have no idea.

Post by **Ddrak** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:07 pm

Personally I would never connect a Win98 box to the internet. Ever. I'm kinda nervous about connecting my home machine directly as well because I know it's insecure as hell. A "router" gives a nice layer of protection, though personally I use a Linux PC instead so I can do fun stuff with it.

Dd

Ickhor · Post by **Ickhor** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:40 am

The bottom of the OSI model is pretty much rock solid. No one pays attention to layers 5, 6, and 7. They exist in nothing but text books.

But 1, 2, 3, 4, payload is almost always respected.

Ickhor · Post by **Ickhor** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:42 am

Also: Programmers Do Not Throw Sausage Pizza Away.

Xtizu · Post by **Xtizu** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:52 pm

the 98 computer is my parents. they know the risks they just dont care. set in their ways like ancient pixxelites

Banlain · Post by **Banlain** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:28 pm

If you get a Linksys BEFSR41 download the newest firmware for it right away. Trust me on that one.

Xtizu · Post by **Xtizu** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:54 pm

its a ezxs55w

writher · Post by **writher** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:14 pm

I have a request for clarification. Typically speaking one can not buy a 'router' at a CompUSA or Circuit City or other retail outlets. The devices typically described as a 'cable router' just plain 'router' are actually switches (or even just hubs) that have built in NAT capabilities (and occasional minimal hardware firewall capabilities) rather than a true 'router' with modifiable tables and intelligent packet routing. Am I correct in this?

Not totally correct.

It has basic functionality of a router in that it has 2 different IP address, one that is a LAN interface, one that is a WAN interface. Between these 2 networks are the only routing that is actually done.

Looking at the routing table there are 3 entries (unless more static entries were put in)

1 that points to the local interface and local subnet
1 that points to the wan interface and the wan subnet

and assuming your router is configured to get a wan IP using DHCP it will also likely be getting:

1 that points to the default gateway address using 0.0.0.0 as the network

On the LAN side if it has multiple ports, these ports function as a hub/switch.

Mine is a switch on the LAN subnet side in that I can see all broadcast messages going across the network, but not direct messages.

So we know the device is a router AND a switch.

It also acts as a DHCP server for easy host configuration (this way hosts with DHCP enabled will automatically know its own LAN IP, Subnet Mask, and Default Gateway configuration).

Ehron · Post by **Ehron** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:17 pm

Why are you scared to connect Win98 to the internet. Remeber RPS/Win Blast? That didn't even touch Win98 but ruined lots of XP/Win2k comps. It all depends on what the threat is.

Also the linksys routers are actually a routher with a built in switch just to be nitpicky.

Some people say hubs are horrible and swtiches are always better. This is not true, don't listen too them. It depends on the situation. If you have under 50-100 computers (depending on how much network traffic you have) and don't mind all of them seeing each other I don't see a problem with a hub. The switch on the router is enough to easily support 24 computers per port all brached off by 24 port hubs (the size I have).

Bahd Zoolander · Post by **Bahd Zoolander** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:56 am

I don't know that I'd put any computer directly onto the internet anymore, but an unpatched Windows 98 machine is just a disaster waiting to happen. Plenty of spyware and virus researchers have done experiments with various versions of windows connected directly to the internet with often interesting results. Sometimes a little paranoia, whether warranted or not, goes a long way. The difference between a machine almost never getting infected and never getting infected is huge when you have something to protect on your network. Ask Valve how much they would have paid to prevent the loss of their source code.

Router is an often misused term, much like switch. Is your generic Cable Modem/DSL "router" really a router? It depends on what you think a router is. Yes, it sends packets to and receives packets from two different networks. Is that all a router is? I don't think Cisco would think so. Obviously a $50 Linksys and a $100,000 Cisco aren't the same thing. The Linksys is a very simple device that performs PAT to allow several computers to masquerade behind a single IP address. An expensive Cisco router could do that too, but it can also perform hundreds of other tasks the Linksys cannot.

What's a switch? Is the $20 NetGear "switch" on my desk the same as a $156,000 HP switch? Not even close, but they do share some basic functionality.

If cheap hubs and cheap switching hubs (switches) both cost around $20 does it really matter which one you use? For an average user that just wants to use an internet browser, e-mail, and such is there any difference between the two? A switching hub could be better if you have an environment where collisions are common. A hub could be better if you have a need to sniff data from other machines. For my $20 I'd buy a switching hub and hope for the best. You could just get the hub too and if you were having collisions you wouldn't know anyway cause $20 hubs probably don't have collision lights.

Xtizu · Post by **Xtizu** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:33 am

well i'm in alaska so 20 goes to 30. but thanks for the simple answer.

SicTimMitchell · Post by **SicTimMitchell** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:09 am

My old DSL modem was a Cisco, and it kicked the Linksys' ass. (Was only $300, too.) I've had one Linksys modem die on me already, and my ISP/friend told me he sees dead Linksys equipment constantly.

The Mrs. and I were excited about the Linksys' built in wireless capability, until we found out that the wireless card for it is pretty much unavailable, the PCMIA receiver cards aren't Mac friendly, and you could get a whole wireless system with two nodes for about the same price. (Which is what we ended up doing.)

So we currently have a router (DSL modem), a hub, and a wireless hub. (We don't want everything on the wireless, and only hook it up occasionally for the PS2 or to take the laptop out on the deck in Summer.)

Qwest stopped supporting Cisco modems, and there was much lamentation.

Ehron · Post by **Ehron** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:31 pm

You know Cisco bought Linksys a few years ago.

Ickhor · Post by **Ickhor** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:44 am

Yes, and Linksys products are made out of the bins of parts which do not pass Cisco QA.