Switch vs Router?

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:31:06 GMT, gecko <alpha.DeleteThis@olympus.net>
wrote:

>I notice that Switches and Routers are being marketed to do what looks
>like pretty much the same thing. What is the difference? Why would
>one choose one over the other?
>
>Thanks
>
>Gecko

Rookie already mentioned logical difference, so I will talk
more about practical differences in making a buying choice.

Today most consumer grade routers have a switch built in.
You can use these routers as a switch and reserve the router
functionality for a later time, or make partial use of it if
it's a wifi router in access point mode to extend your
'sites wireless coverage. The main reason today for a
consumer to buy a switch instead is if it has a greater # of
ports, since the routers are commonly as inexpensive as the
switches if speaking of 100Mb, after a rebate in the US
they're as low as $0 to $15.

Gigabit is another story, gigabit routers are dropping in
price but still command a premium over 100Mb ethernet
versions.

The routing functionality itself is to segregate a LAN from
a WAN. Typically you don't want anything on the WAN
(*internet*) able to route to something on your lan, instead
using the IP port forwarding feature on the router. This as
a function of the NAT feature on a router means a router
gives you an additional layer of security over a switch.

Another feature of a router that is important to some is
that when connected to a modem and used with an ISP, many
ISPs only issue one IP address for their low cost
residential accounts. This would allow only one system to
connect to the internet if you don't have a router to do the
NAT and act as that one system, although today some modems
also incorporate a NAT and DHCP server feature so customers
could use a switch instead of a separate router.

Generally low cost switches are unmanaged, they pass
everything they are capable of. Managed switches are
significantly more expensive, and overkill for most
consumers' needs. With a router you do often have a basic
level of management features, moreso than with a switch.

I suppose ultimately given a low budget (who wants to spend
more than they need to?) the choice is basically:

Router - more security, configurability and features (some
features may vary per product, if your needs are unique more
research may be necessary).

Switch - cheaper if you want gigabit or more than roughly 5
switched ports.

Many people will first get a router, if their purchase came
after they already had broadband internet, then suppliment
that with a switch if they have need for more systems than
the router will support, OR if several of those systems are
situated a distance away from the router and it is easier or
more cost effective to run a single ethernet cable to a
remote switch and then cable from the switch to the systems,
rather than running several ethernet cables the longer or
more difficult path to these several systems (plus several
long ethernet runs can easily cost as much or more than the
price of a consumer grade switch). Those with wifi capable
client systems may instead pick a 2nd router for the remote
switch position so they have the option of using it in
access point mode to extend their wireless coverage as
mentioned previously.
 >> Stay informed about: Switch vs Router? 

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:58:46 -0500, kony <spam.RemoveThis@spam.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:31:06 GMT, gecko <alpha.RemoveThis@olympus.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I notice that Switches and Routers are being marketed to do what looks
>>like pretty much the same thing. What is the difference? Why would
>>one choose one over the other?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Gecko
>
>Rookie already mentioned logical difference, so I will talk
>more about practical differences in making a buying choice.
>
>Today most consumer grade routers have a switch built in.
>You can use these routers as a switch and reserve the router
>functionality for a later time, or make partial use of it if
>it's a wifi router in access point mode to extend your
>'sites wireless coverage. The main reason today for a
>consumer to buy a switch instead is if it has a greater # of
>ports, since the routers are commonly as inexpensive as the
>switches if speaking of 100Mb, after a rebate in the US
>they're as low as $0 to $15.
>
>Gigabit is another story, gigabit routers are dropping in
>price but still command a premium over 100Mb ethernet
>versions.
>
>The routing functionality itself is to segregate a LAN from
>a WAN. Typically you don't want anything on the WAN
>(*internet*) able to route to something on your lan, instead
>using the IP port forwarding feature on the router. This as
>a function of the NAT feature on a router means a router
>gives you an additional layer of security over a switch.
>
>Another feature of a router that is important to some is
>that when connected to a modem and used with an ISP, many
>ISPs only issue one IP address for their low cost
>residential accounts. This would allow only one system to
>connect to the internet if you don't have a router to do the
>NAT and act as that one system, although today some modems
>also incorporate a NAT and DHCP server feature so customers
>could use a switch instead of a separate router.
>
>Generally low cost switches are unmanaged, they pass
>everything they are capable of. Managed switches are
>significantly more expensive, and overkill for most
>consumers' needs. With a router you do often have a basic
>level of management features, moreso than with a switch.
>
>I suppose ultimately given a low budget (who wants to spend
>more than they need to?) the choice is basically:
>
>Router - more security, configurability and features (some
>features may vary per product, if your needs are unique more
>research may be necessary).
>
>Switch - cheaper if you want gigabit or more than roughly 5
>switched ports.
>
>Many people will first get a router, if their purchase came
>after they already had broadband internet, then suppliment
>that with a switch if they have need for more systems than
>the router will support, OR if several of those systems are
>situated a distance away from the router and it is easier or
>more cost effective to run a single ethernet cable to a
>remote switch and then cable from the switch to the systems,
>rather than running several ethernet cables the longer or
>more difficult path to these several systems (plus several
>long ethernet runs can easily cost as much or more than the
>price of a consumer grade switch). Those with wifi capable
>client systems may instead pick a 2nd router for the remote
>switch position so they have the option of using it in
>access point mode to extend their wireless coverage as
>mentioned previously.

Thanks

Gecko
 >> Stay informed about: Switch vs Router? 

gecko wrote:
>
.... snip 81 line quote ...
>
> Thanks

You quoted 81 lines for this 1 word answer. Not good.

<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Switch vs Router? 

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:479FA424.45A489FF@yahoo.com...
> gecko wrote:
>>
> ... snip 81 line quote ...
>>
>> Thanks
>
> You quoted 81 lines for this 1 word answer. Not good.

The only thin worse than that was that you bothered to count how many lines
his reply was?!?
 >> Stay informed about: Switch vs Router? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Switch vs Router? 

GT wrote:
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> gecko wrote:
>>>
>> ... snip 81 line quote ...
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> You quoted 81 lines for this 1 word answer. Not good.
>
> The only thin worse than that was that you bothered to count how
> many lines his reply was?!?

No I didn't. I am much too lazy. My newsreader, however, did.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Switch vs Router? 

On 29 Jan, 00:31, gecko <al... RemoveThis @olympus.net> wrote:
> I notice that Switches and Routers are being marketed to do what looks
> like pretty much the same thing.  What is the difference?  Why would
> one choose one over the other?
>
> Thanks
>
> Gecko

where are they marketted to do what looks like the same thing?

the things on sale tend to be either Switches and a switch alone will
not connect you to the internet. I have a switch, (for "ethernet",
wired internet) , it just has RJ45 sockets, the 8 pin sockets for cat5
network cables.
There is no Telephone/RJ11 socket.

The things sold as routers, with many RJ45 sockets, have a switch
built in. And most of these things sold as Routers, also have an
RJ11(telephone socket), because they have a modem built in. These
things with the many RJ45 sockets do NAT too. One might call them NAT
Routers. They are sold to the consumer market, users, techies,
businesses. I think you can turn the NAT off usually or sometimes, if
you wanted to.

Techies and some businesses may get "proper" routers.. e.g. Cisco
ones. Which prob don't do NAT. They may also turn their computer
into a whatever - router, switch , modem, network firewall, "e.t.c."
 >> Stay informed about: Switch vs Router? 

On Jan 31, 8:16 pm, kony <s... DeleteThis @spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:32:36 -0800 (PST),
> "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanle... DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >And most of these things sold as Routers, also have an
> >RJ11(telephone socket), because they have a modem built in.
>
> ???  Maybe on your side of the pond, but generally routers
> don't have modems built in except for a few models targeted
> at sales to ISPs(' customers).  If you take a look somewhere
> like newegg.com, it's probably 9 out of 10 that don't have a
> modem built in (as a rough guess, I haven't actually taken a
> survey).

I am not completely sure on this, but

ADSL users, almost always have router with modem built in. From what I
have seen anyway. I guess it is an ISP preference.
There are hardly any small ADSL modems. (relying on 2 of those
blasted things is worse, since if one goes down , temporarily or
permanently, then the connection is down. You know how they can
restart or overheat or both).

I did once have 2 linksys things, one a router/modem with a few RJ45
LAN ports. I just used that as a modem.
Another a router without modem in it- it had an RJ45 port labelled WAN
instead, for connection to a modem with an RJ45 port.. .
The router/modem near the wall, was doing NAT too.

Do any UK ISPs provide small ADSL modems? I would bet they prob do NAT
anyhow... So are more than just ADSL modems.

I have seen USB Speedtouch ADSL modems, And they are just what I have
heard some call a "half bridge". And they do not connect either. The
connection is done by software on the computer.
If it is indeed a "half bridge", then is there any modem that does
not even have a bridge(switch) in it? Personally, I do not see why it
would have one in it.. What comes in one side can go out the other
side. No bridging necessary.

Cable users do have modems. separate. Modems with a cable connector,
and an RJ45 port. The RJ45 port going to one of those routers with a
WAN socket(to connect a modem.. Along with LAN sockets.

Given that ISPs seem not to be providing small ADSL modems, it is
cheaper to just have one unit that is / acts as router and modem. And
more reliable too.
 >> Stay informed about: Switch vs Router? 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:32:36 -0800 (PST),
"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanley39.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>And most of these things sold as Routers, also have an
>RJ11(telephone socket), because they have a modem built in.

??? Maybe on your side of the pond, but generally routers
don't have modems built in except for a few models targeted
at sales to ISPs(' customers). If you take a look somewhere
like newegg.com, it's probably 9 out of 10 that don't have a
modem built in (as a rough guess, I haven't actually taken a
survey).
 >> Stay informed about: Switch vs Router? 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:44:37 -0800 (PST),
"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanley39.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Jan 31, 8:16 pm, kony <s....RemoveThis@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:32:36 -0800 (PST),
>> "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanle....RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >And most of these things sold as Routers, also have an
>> >RJ11(telephone socket), because they have a modem built in.
>>
>> ???  Maybe on your side of the pond, but generally routers
>> don't have modems built in except for a few models targeted
>> at sales to ISPs(' customers).  If you take a look somewhere
>> like newegg.com, it's probably 9 out of 10 that don't have a
>> modem built in (as a rough guess, I haven't actually taken a
>> survey).
>
>I am not completely sure on this, but
>
>ADSL users, almost always have router with modem built in. From what I
>have seen anyway. I guess it is an ISP preference.

There are many hybrid modems with router built in, but they
are generally called modems, not just called routers as the
product name and classification.



>There are hardly any small ADSL modems. (relying on 2 of those
>blasted things is worse, since if one goes down , temporarily or
>permanently, then the connection is down. You know how they can
>restart or overheat or both).

How small does it really need to be? They're about the size
of any other small cased box?

Relying on two is better, that way if one goes down you can
buy a cheaper replacement, and with each separate they not
only tend to have more features but you can also pick which
features the router has, for example a newer wifi standar or
gigabit ethernet switch built in.

>
>I did once have 2 linksys things, one a router/modem with a few RJ45
>LAN ports. I just used that as a modem.
>Another a router without modem in it- it had an RJ45 port labelled WAN
>instead, for connection to a modem with an RJ45 port.. .
>The router/modem near the wall, was doing NAT too.
>
>Do any UK ISPs provide small ADSL modems? I would bet they prob do NAT
>anyhow... So are more than just ADSL modems.

Yes, if it does NAT it is more than just a modem, although
it seems even devices only called modems have been
incorporating this feature and a DHCP server, for example
the quite popular Motorola Surfboard cable modems... though
again you have little if any control that you would have
with a dedicated, separate router.


>
>I have seen USB Speedtouch ADSL modems, And they are just what I have
>heard some call a "half bridge". And they do not connect either. The
>connection is done by software on the computer.
> If it is indeed a "half bridge", then is there any modem that does
>not even have a bridge(switch) in it? Personally, I do not see why it
>would have one in it.. What comes in one side can go out the other
>side. No bridging necessary.

You've got a data link between the computer and the telco, I
suspect it has to be a bridge if it isn't doing NAT.



>
>Cable users do have modems. separate. Modems with a cable connector,
>and an RJ45 port. The RJ45 port going to one of those routers with a
>WAN socket(to connect a modem.. Along with LAN sockets.
>
>Given that ISPs seem not to be providing small ADSL modems, it is
>cheaper to just have one unit that is / acts as router and modem. And
>more reliable too.

IMO, reliability has more to do with overheating than
anything else, hence the reason why all my gear has had the
covers pulled off and extra ventilation holes drilled into
them. That's the nice thing about owning your own equipment
instead of leasing an ADSL modem as many people in the US
used to do (and maybe still do?).

If talking about ADSL, it may be as cheap to have a modem
with router built in, but with cable it's generally cheaper
to get a modem and router separately as routers these days
are a dime a dozen almost, actually the last one I bought
for a friend was $10 after a rebate and performed just as
well as mine though it had fewer features.
 >> Stay informed about: Switch vs Router? 

On Feb 1, 4:14 am, kony <s....DeleteThis@spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:44:37 -0800 (PST),
> "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanle....DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 31, 8:16 pm, kony <s....DeleteThis@spam.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:32:36 -0800 (PST),
> >> "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanle....DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >And most of these things sold as Routers, also have an
> >> >RJ11(telephone socket), because they have a modem built in.
>
> >> ???  Maybe on your side of the pond, but generally routers
> >> don't have modems built in except for a few models targeted
> >> at sales to ISPs(' customers).  If you take a look somewhere
> >> like newegg.com, it's probably 9 out of 10 that don't have a
> >> modem built in (as a rough guess, I haven't actually taken a
> >> survey).
>
> >I am not completely sure on this, but
>
> >ADSL users, almost always have router with modem built in. From what I
> >have seen anyway.  I guess it is an ISP preference.
>
> There are many hybrid modems with router built in, but they
> are generally called modems, not just called routers as the
> product name and classification.

a marketting thing.

I guess If it has many LAN ports (on the switch!), they call it a
router(whether it has a modem or not). If it has one LAN port on the
switch, they call it a modem.

in reality, real routers have many router LAN(/WAN I guess) ports. So
whether it has many switch ports or one, is really not relevant!

>
> >There are hardly any small ADSL modems.  (relying on 2 of those
> >blasted things is worse, since if one goes down , temporarily or
> >permanently, then the connection is down. You know how they can
> >restart or overheat or both).
>
> How small does it really need to be?  They're about the size
> of any other small cased box?
>

well they tend to have one LAN port instead of like 4. So they tend to
be somewhat smaller than the ones that have 4. So they are smaller.

sometimes they are square rather than rectangular

> Relying on two is better, that way if one goes down you can
> buy a cheaper replacement,

Obviously having a second working thing is a good idea. But if it is
on a bookshelf waiting to be put to use , then it is not being relied
on.

I was talking of relying on 2. So having a router/modem connected to
one of those router sans modem.


> and with each separate they not
> only tend to have more features but you can also pick which
> features the router has, for example a newer wifi standar or
> gigabit ethernet switch built in.
>
>

yes.. The routers without modems tend to have more features.

and the routers with modems, if they are being marketted as modems,
tend to have less.

and the modems - half bridge kind of things - without routers, tend to
have no extra, or minimal features!

>
> >I did once have 2 linksys things, one a router/modem with a few RJ45
> >LAN ports. I just used that as a modem.
> >Another a router without modem in it- it had an RJ45 port labelled WAN
> >instead, for connection to a modem with an RJ45 port.. .
> >The router/modem near the wall, was doing NAT too.
>
> >Do any UK ISPs provide small ADSL modems? I would bet they prob do NAT
> >anyhow...  So are more than just ADSL modems.
>
> Yes, if it does NAT it is more than just a modem, although
> it seems even devices only called modems have been
> incorporating this feature and a  DHCP server, for example
> the quite popular Motorola Surfboard cable modems... though
> again you have little if any control that you would have
> with a dedicated, separate router.
>

I am not talking of small Cable modems, though it is interesting they
are having NAT too...

I meant small ADSL modems without NAT?

note- i know you can turn NAT off on some routers - probably the type
that do not have a modem built in. Since they have more flexible and
additional functionality.


>
>
> >I have seen USB Speedtouch ADSL modems, And they are just what I have
> >heard some call a "half bridge".  And they do not connect either. The
> >connection is done by software on the computer.
> >  If it is indeed a "half bridge", then is there any modem that does
> >not even have a bridge(switch) in it?  Personally, I do not see why it
> >would have one in it.. What comes in one side can go out the other
> >side. No bridging necessary.
>
> You've got a data link between the computer and the telco, I
> suspect it has to be a bridge if it isn't doing NAT.
>
>

brindging involves checking MAC addresses to see where to bridge the
thingamajig
(let`s call it packet in "the telecom sense"! I guess it is not Frame
since I think that word excludes the contents of the frame!!!).

So there is no need to check MAC addresses. There is only one place it
would go.

A similar thing was said of NAT Routers..They have a built in switch.
But really the router part is 2 sockets. No need to route. But since
telnetting in shows it has a routing table. I think that is why they
call it a router.. Since perhaps for cost reasons - mass production-
it uses that router firmare"/"electronics.


>
> >Cable users do have modems. separate. Modems with a cable connector,
> >and an RJ45 port. The RJ45 port going to one of those routers with a
> >WAN socket(to connect a modem..  Along with LAN sockets.
>
> >Given that ISPs seem not to be providing small ADSL modems, it is
> >cheaper to just have one unit that is / acts as  router and modem. And
> >more reliable too.
>
> IMO, reliability has more to do with overheating than
> anything else, hence the reason why all my gear has had the
> covers pulled off and extra ventilation holes drilled into
> them.  That's the nice thing about owning your own equipment
> instead of leasing an ADSL modem as many people in the US
> used to do (and maybe still do?).
>

I agree reliabilty is more to do with overheating. That is one reason
why relying on 2 is worse. In case one goes down, and overheating is a
big reason why they might go down!!

<snip>
 >> Stay informed about: Switch vs Router? 

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:08:06 -0800 (PST),
"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanley39 RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:


>> There are many hybrid modems with router built in, but they
>> are generally called modems, not just called routers as the
>> product name and classification.
>
>a marketting thing.
>
>I guess If it has many LAN ports (on the switch!), they call it a
>router(whether it has a modem or not). If it has one LAN port on the
>switch, they call it a modem.

If it has a modem they call it a modem (that happens to also
have a router in it).



>
>in reality, real routers have many router LAN(/WAN I guess) ports. So
>whether it has many switch ports or one, is really not relevant!

True, a router only needs have one LAN and one WAN port,
though as with a modem, a router may happen to have a switch
in it in addition to being a router.



>
>>
>> >There are hardly any small ADSL modems.  (relying on 2 of those
>> >blasted things is worse, since if one goes down , temporarily or
>> >permanently, then the connection is down. You know how they can
>> >restart or overheat or both).
>>
>> How small does it really need to be?  They're about the size
>> of any other small cased box?
>>
>
>well they tend to have one LAN port instead of like 4. So they tend to
>be somewhat smaller than the ones that have 4. So they are smaller.

Maybe a little but not much, routers are pretty small these
days, and light enough that I've seen some that wouldn't
even stand on end because the weight of the cables plugged
in would flip them on their sides if those cables weren't
pre-bent and fastened down.



>
>sometimes they are square rather than rectangular
>
>> Relying on two is better, that way if one goes down you can
>> buy a cheaper replacement,
>
>Obviously having a second working thing is a good idea. But if it is
>on a bookshelf waiting to be put to use , then it is not being relied
>on.

I'm speaking of having separate modem and router. By
increasing surface area and decreasing heat, you decrease
heat density (If all else is equal). It also means that if
your LAN had relied on a router's switch and the modem died,
it doesn't take down your whole LAN. Mainly though it is
the expanded feature set and being able to choose exactly
which router you wan which makes the separate components
more desirable.



>> Yes, if it does NAT it is more than just a modem, although
>> it seems even devices only called modems have been
>> incorporating this feature and a  DHCP server, for example
>> the quite popular Motorola Surfboard cable modems... though
>> again you have little if any control that you would have
>> with a dedicated, separate router.
>>
>
>I am not talking of small Cable modems, though it is interesting they
>are having NAT too...
>
>I meant small ADSL modems without NAT?

Without NAT you'd need a proxy on one of the systems, or as
windows likes to call one of them "ICS".
 >> Stay informed about: Switch vs Router? 

On Feb 1, 9:32 pm, kony <s... RemoveThis @spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:08:06 -0800 (PST),
> "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk" <jameshanle... RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >> There are many hybrid modems with router built in, but they
> >> are generally called modems, not just called routers as the
> >> product name and classification.
>
> >a marketting thing.
>
> >I guess If it has many LAN ports (on the switch!), they call it a
> >router(whether it has a modem or not). If it has one LAN port on the
> >switch, they call it a modem.
>
> If it has a modem they call it a modem (that happens to also
> have a router in it).
>

I just googled a router/modem I like, the Speedtouch 546.
It is a router/modem with many switch ports. So they don`t undermarket
it by calling it a modem.
The links call it a router.
Thomson SpeedTouch 546 v6 ADSL2+ Router

Maybe the fact that it says ADSL implies modem.. so they are calling
it a router/modem.

Interestingly, I have not seen router/modems with many switch ports
and a cable modem in there. (you`d know it had a cable modem, if it
had an aerial stalk like connector on it). Router/DSL modems, have
RJ11 connectors. DSL uses RJ11. Cable users have Cable sockets in
their walls.


>
>
> >in reality, real routers have many router LAN(/WAN I guess) ports. So
> >whether it has many switch ports or one, is really not relevant!
>
> True, a router only needs have one LAN and one WAN port,
> though as with a modem, a router may happen to have a switch
> in it in addition to being a router.
>

Really, it is a box. With functions. Router is a function or rather,
the name for the box that does the Routing function..

If it only has 2 ports, there is no need for it to do any Routing.

Just like I said with the switch/bridge. The USB DSL modem, it
connects 2 things together, there is no need need for it to be a
bridge.



<snip>

> >> Relying on two is better, that way if one goes down you can
> >> buy a cheaper replacement,
>
> >Obviously having a second working thing is a good idea. But if it is
> >on a bookshelf waiting to be put to use , then it is not being relied
> >on.
>
> I'm speaking of having separate modem and router. By
> increasing surface area and decreasing heat, you decrease
> heat density (If all else is equal). It also means that if
> your LAN had relied on a router's switch and the modem died,
> it doesn't take down your whole LAN.

I do not know what you mean at all.

If you have a router and it overheats, then it overheated. If you add
a modem into the mix, it does not reduce the chance of the router
overheating.

Are you saying that the box that is a router/modem overheats more than
a box that is a router without modem ?


> Mainly though it is
> the expanded feature set and being able to choose exactly
> which router you wan which makes the separate components
> more desirable.
>

Well, before you said you were talking of a router and a modem. So now
you are talking of a few routers.

For me, a switch with many ports is fine. If I need more ports I would
add another switch.

Many routers is a different ball game.. It has to be justified. You
mentioned no reason. Like an office with different IP subnetworks, and
for security reasons, one cannot see another one.



> >> Yes, if it does NAT it is more than just a modem, although
> >> it seems even devices only called modems have been
> >> incorporating this feature and a DHCP server, for example
> >> the quite popular Motorola Surfboard cable modems... though
> >> again you have little if any control that you would have
> >> with a dedicated, separate router.
>
> >I am not talking of small Cable modems, though it is interesting they
> >are having NAT too...
>
> >I meant small ADSL modems without NAT?
>
> Without NAT you'd need a proxy on one of the systems, or as
> windows likes to call one of them "ICS".


No, you don`t need it. You can connect a single computer up. No ICS.

And ICS is a Router. I don`t know anybody that calls a router a
proxy.

I have not used ICS, but googling, it seems that ICS uses NAT.

So what you wrote there seems wrong on lots of levels.
 >> Stay informed about: Switch vs Router?