A Letter From Comcast
<div class="IPBDescription">A router? Why?</div> My modem is pluged into a hub, uplinking to 3 computers.
We just got a letter from Comcast complaining that we were using a hub. They said they would charge an extra $10 a month if we don't get a router, because they didn't want our account sending back 3 ip addresses, but just 1. Why does it matter? Are they just trying to get me to fork over an extra 10 bucks a month?
The day we had it installed, the guy said the setup we have right now would be just fine.
My main concern is how a router would affect performace compared to my good old hub.
Never used a router.
We just got a letter from Comcast complaining that we were using a hub. They said they would charge an extra $10 a month if we don't get a router, because they didn't want our account sending back 3 ip addresses, but just 1. Why does it matter? Are they just trying to get me to fork over an extra 10 bucks a month?
The day we had it installed, the guy said the setup we have right now would be just fine.
My main concern is how a router would affect performace compared to my good old hub.
Never used a router.
Comments
well, router should give you a hardware firewall (best kind imho), so its always a good thing <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
and it will pay itself off in a few months (at $10 a month).
Still, I didn't realize you could use a normal hub....
Are there any performace differences with a router?
btw, what is 'forwarding ports'?
Are there any performace differences with a router?
btw, what is 'forwarding ports'? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forwarding ports is something you really only have to worry about if you run a server of sorts. Basically it forwards ports from the routers to the proper computer.
Basicaly a Router actss a a computer that connects to the net and then fowards data to the other computers. Where as a hub (if I remember correctly) just splits the line to every one.
hubs are dumb, routers are smart (again, if I am remembering correctly).
There is no reason not to get a Router.
A hub broadcasts the signal to every single port on the hub, meaning all data recieved to 1 PC is sent to all 3 regardless. Routers only send the data to the 1 PC its supposed to go to.
I'd recommend getting a router too, they're pretty cheap now.
Basicaly a Router actss a a computer that connects to the net and then fowards data to the other computers. Where as a hub (if I remember correctly) just splits the line to every one.
hubs are dumb, routers are smart (again, if I am remembering correctly).
There is no reason not to get a Router. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are correct, my ISP allows me to use a hub but a router is MUCH better,
I know its nitpicking, but technically its the built in switch on most SoHo routers that is determining where to send the data, the router only really knows weather a packet should be sent to the internet or the internal network.
Oh, and BTW, the reason Comcast only wants you to use one IP address is that there are a fairly liited number of them. Right now all your computers have public IP addresses, these adresses should be globably unique and are used to tell whos who on the internet. When you use the router, all your computers will have private IP addresses, these addresses are reserved for use in internal networks and cannot be used on the internet. The router will use a service called NAT (Network Address Translation) to allow all your computers to connect to the internet through its one public IP address. This may, on occasion, cause problems with some games and other internet programs, thats where port forwarding comes in.
You won't notice any real difference, beyond not being able to send files via IRC DCC (without some setup, which you CAN do if you need it), not being able to receive files through IM programs (some of which can be set up to pass through a router, but not the crappy ones), and not being able to share files on some P2P services (set it up, and it works again). As well as slower BitTorrent speeds (alleviatable again by doing proper setup).
Plug it in, you'll be able to get online and deal with getting the rest set up properly.
Also, nitpick time. 'Home routers' aren't routers. They're embedded NAT devices, most of which run a stripped-down version of Linux. To steal a comparison.. the performance difference between an actual router and a home 'router' is the difference between chocolate and s**t. An actual router can handle tens if not hundreds of gigabytes of data streaming through each second. They also usually cost between $2000 and $300,000.
Home routers can usually only handle at most 100 megabits/s. But they're priced far cheaper, and normally can easily meet the needs of a home user.
Switches are 'intelligent' hubs, that can perform a number of packet-mangling operations, including restricting specific ports to particular types of behaviours. Switches are not 'home routers' though some HRs integrate a switch.
Hubs are stupid, and have a lot of packet collisions (causing slower network throughput) when more than one machine is trying to use the network at once. They cost less than switches though, by quite a bit.
For what it's worth, I'm rather envious that you got free additional IPs up until now <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Anyway, for Internet access you won't notice a difference at all since cable broadband won't tax even the cheapest of hubs. For transfers on your local LAN you might notice improved speeds due to a reduction in collisions thanks to the integrated switch most consumer broadband routers feature.
The extra security Thansal mentioned is a real benefit as well, arguments about how evil NAT is notwithstanding.
You won't notice any real difference, beyond not being able to send files via IRC DCC (without some setup, which you CAN do if you need it), not being able to receive files through IM programs (some of which can be set up to pass through a router, but not the crappy ones), and not being able to share files on some P2P services (set it up, and it works again). As well as slower BitTorrent speeds (alleviatable again by doing proper setup).
Plug it in, you'll be able to get online and deal with getting the rest set up properly.
Also, nitpick time. 'Home routers' aren't routers. They're embedded NAT devices, most of which run a stripped-down version of Linux. To steal a comparison.. the performance difference between an actual router and a home 'router' is the difference between chocolate and s**t. An actual router can handle tens if not hundreds of gigabytes of data streaming through each second. They also usually cost between $2000 and $300,000.
Home routers can usually only handle at most 100 megabits/s. But they're priced far cheaper, and normally can easily meet the needs of a home user.
Switches are 'intelligent' hubs, that can perform a number of packet-mangling operations, including restricting specific ports to particular types of behaviours. Switches are not 'home routers' though some HRs integrate a switch.
Hubs are stupid, and have a lot of packet collisions (causing slower network throughput) when more than one machine is trying to use the network at once. They cost less than switches though, by quite a bit. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
^^
Talesin says pretty much anything I was going to say
thats the decision i need to make.
thats the decision i need to make. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you REALLY want the wireless, dont. Go for the linksys berfs1 router. best one out there IMO.
I just hooked the thing up and i was good to go! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I know what you're getting at... but wouldn't that be like walking up to a Ford Escort and saying "That's not a car" because it doesn't have the performance of a McLaren F-1?
It's a bit like taking a pushbike, putting a car bodykit on it, then calling it a car. In theory, it does the same thing. In practise? Noooo.... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
thats the decision i need to make. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
When it comes to wireless, just say no. Its convienient sure, but its damn near impossible to secure.
It's a bit like taking a pushbike, putting a car bodykit on it, then calling it a car. In theory, it does the same thing. In practise? Noooo.... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A home router and a "real" router do the same thing, but at different performance levels. They're both routers, that was my point.
thats the decision i need to make. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just set up a wireless network in my apartment and I love it. Don't go w/ linksys or D-Link though, they're crap. Netgear suprisingly though is actually very very good. They're also top in class in the reviews I've seen. Of course a Cisco or 3Com wireless kit is gonna be better, but you'll twice or even three times as much cash for it.
Don't go w/ Linksys though. I like the shirts they give away at Quakecon, but too bad their actual products suck ****.
Whatever man. Keep the semantics if you wish.
My router keeps stuffing up and giving me insane pings. There isn't anything on my ISP either. Just the router getting congested.
Man I wish I knew how routers worked....damn manual is in engrish (US brand router, translated to chinese)
Admiteddly, 99.99% of the time when 'home routers' go wrong, it's a misconfiguration on the users part, not the router.
A home router may have nowhere near the performance, but it still makes the same routing decisions.
You definately want 54MB, not 11. If you plan on doing a *LOT* of in-network (not internet) traffic you may even want 108. That's only if you have like a file server or something though.
Also, someone brought up security, the software that comes w/ a wireless router makes it very easy to secure. You can choose between 64-bit or 128-bit encryption based on 1 of 4 keys (password, sort of) you choose, and if that isn't enough you can have the router only allow the MAC address of specifically added cards.
Its not completely fullproof (no security system is), but the way I see it is if hax0rs are desperate enough to hax the encryption *AND* hax my mac address, well then they're just gonna have access to my MP3's on share now won't they?
You definately want 54MB, not 11. If you plan on doing a *LOT* of in-network (not internet) traffic you may even want 108. That's only if you have like a file server or something though.
Also, someone brought up security, the software that comes w/ a wireless router makes it very easy to secure. You can choose between 64-bit or 128-bit encryption based on 1 of 4 keys (password, sort of) you choose, and if that isn't enough you can have the router only allow the MAC address of specifically added cards.
Its not completely fullproof (no security system is), but the way I see it is if hax0rs are desperate enough to hax the encryption *AND* hax my mac address, well then they're just gonna have access to my MP3's on share now won't they? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
WEP (Wireless Encryption Protocol) is pretty bad:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->802.11b, using the Wired Equivalent Protocol (WEP), is crippled with numerous security flaws. Most damning of these is the weakness described in " Weaknesses in the Key Scheduling Algorithm of RC4 " by Scott Fluhrer, Itsik Mantin and Adi Shamir. Adam Stubblefield was the first to implement this attack, but he has not made his software public. AirSnort, along with WEPCrack, which was released about the same time as AirSnort, are the first publicly available implementaions of this attack.
AirSnort requires approximately 5-10 million encrypted packets to be gathered. Once enough packets have been gathered, AirSnort can guess the encryption password in under a second. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted 5-10 million packets is alot, how often do you change the key though? Changing your MAC address to one of the working ones you sniffed out of the air after cracking WEP is trivial (if WEP even encrypts the MAC...). About the only wireless setup I've seen that I would call secure had all the clients use IPSec (3des) through the wireless to a firewall. And its not you're MP3s they'll be going for, popular targets are passwords and creditcard numbers (though yet annother layer of security must be breached to get at those [SSL et al]), or your internet connection itself. Its very tempting not to have to pay for broadband...