Home Network Question/ Confirmation

[gonzo]

I need to replace my wireless router. I've read the various reviews and suggestions on buying a wirelss router, but my issue/ question is not really a "wireless" question, hence my posting it here.

When I built my house, I wired it with cat 6, so that it could support gigabit speed. I have a Netgear ReadyNAS, and I think having the faster speed in my LAN would be nice, especially with streaming music & photos, as well as file transfers.

I am planning on getting a gigabit switch. What I'm trying to figure out is it worth getting a gigabit wireless router. I have a cable modem, I'm supposed to be a on 5MB plan, but when I run speed tests, I'm consistently greater than 6MB. I don't know that having a gigabit router will allow any faster throughput or not. I know the gigabit router isn't going to give gigabit wireless, but since my internet flow will be through that to the gigabit switch, I'm trying to figure out if that is important or not.

My planned/current connection is cable modem -> wireless router -> gigabit switch (currently my switch is not a gigabit switch)

I'm just trying to figure out if the gigabit wireless router is worth it. I'm looking at the Linksys WRT400N (not a gigabit) vs WRT310N (gigabit). Is there some potential for internet speed to be reduced by a non-gigabit router, or does that not matter. The Netgear WRND3700 sounds like a nice router, but is pricey, especially for my little home network.

I understand that concept that I'm limited by my internet connection speed, but I don't want to put up any roadblocks that might limit my speeds.

Having the gigabit switch will allow my computer to transfer with the NAS at the faster speed. I usually plug my laptop into an ethernet port, rather than use wirelsss, especially if I'm transferring data with my NAS, to take advantage of the higher transfer speed.

Any thoughts/ comments are appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[jdabbs]

Internet throughput should not be impacted, since your rated connection speed is considerably below the router's link rate. Some routers are unable to handle WAN traffic at their stated link rate, but with your router choice and connection speed, this won't be a problem.

Discrete switch vs integrated comes down to your aversion to clutter, additional points of failure, and a (minor) increase in power consumption. This is offset by the ability to have another location to run cables to (which may not matter if you've already run them) and increased port capacity. If you plan to locate the switch elsewhere, I'd opt for a gigabit router so all clients have access to gigabit connectivity. Otherwise, the decision comes down to personal preference and the ability of a gigabit router to provide the desired connectivity with just four ports.

 

[MarkProvanP]

I don't see the point of a gigabit switch connected to a gigabit router, as having a 10/100 router only restricts you if the wireless will go faster than 100Mbits or if you ever got a 100Mbit internet connection. If you are going to have a gigabit switch, then why not just have an access point? I'm sure that they have DHCP servers, but I've heard that you should have a firewall between the switch and the internet gateway. What kind of switch is it? How many ports does it have?

Personally, I have looked at the Linksys WRT320N, which is a non-simultaneous dual band gigabit router. For almost the same price, you can get a 10/100 router that does simultaneous dual-band.

 

[gonzo]

Thanks for the responses.

I have 16 network ports throughout my house. I by no means use all of the them, but when building it, I tried to think of every possible situation I might need one. Much easier to have to many, than not enough and then try to run new lines. I ran lines to all TV locations, with the thought that someday that might be useful (and with some of the new TV technology, it looks like it is heading that way).

So, while I don't use all 16 ports at once, I do at different times use different ports. Sometimes I'm in my office, or bedroom, or kitchen, etc. and for the faster speed I'll connect to the nearest port, instead of wireless. I also built in an A/V closet, so all of my A/V equipment, modem, router, switches and other electronics are all in one location, so clutter isn't a huge issue. No one is seeing the equipment. Currently, I have a Linksys wireless router and a 16 port switch. Both are 10/100.

That is why I need more than just the 4 ports in a router.

I'm looking at a Netgear and a Trendnet gigabit switch. The router gives me a VPN firewall capability, which is useful.

I am not sure I need a dual-band, as I don't know that I really see myself using the 5 GHz. It seems that there are some limitations to 5 GHz. Although, I guess it doesn't hurt to have it available.

My concern/issue is will having a 10/100 router between the modem and the gigabit switch potentially provide any bottleneck. While I might be receiving 6 Mbits at the modem, I want to ensure that there isn't sowemthing in the router that maybe potentially reduces it to 5 Mbits when it gets to my computer. Would having a gigabit router eliminate any concern, if there is any.

I guess if I really am that concerned, I should just look at getting a dual band gigabit router and be done with it. For $50 more than the Linksys WRT400N or 320N, I can get the Netgear WNDR3700 dual band gigabit.

Thanks again for the response.

 

[msl]

My concern/issue is will having a 10/100 router between the modem and the gigabit switch potentially provide any bottleneck.

In theory I think this has the potential to be a slight bottleneck for a wireless N router. In practice I think you will see no difference in performance due to the router having 100Mb or Gb ports.

Consider the different traffic you have in play and the points over which that traffic is flowing...

On the WAN side of the router you have the traffic coming from the cable modem. I am assuming you mean 6Mb (bits) here rather than 6MB (bytes, which would be 48Mb). This has to be routed by the router. Regardless of the speed of their network ports, routers will differ in the speed they are capable of routing traffic, depending on their processing power. Have a look at the reviews on this site for routing performance. I wouldn't expect a current router to have any difficulty handling your traffic speeds.

On the LAN side of the router you have the wireless traffic. Looking at the wireless charts, a very few devices might be able to manage a maximum wireless throughput slightly in excess of 100Mb. However, most get nowhere near this and none do in the average case.

The most traffic you could possibly have flowing over the connection between the router and the switch is the sum of the WAN bandwidth and the wireless bandwidth (assuming a wireless client talking to a wired LAN client, like your NAS). In theory this could top 100Mb with some wireless N equipment and both WAN and wireless running flat-out, which would mean a bottleneck. In practice it seems unlikely you will get anywhere near 100Mb.

One caveat is that I have assumed all your wired equipment is connected to the switch. If you have wired clients talking to each other connected to both the router and the switch, in theory they could be soaking up the whole 100Mb and bottlenecking other traffic between the switch and router.

If you are really concerned about bottlenecks then an alternative might be to get a wireless access point (or use a wireless router purely as an access point) and connect it directly to the switch, instead of using wireless on your router. This has an advantage that the WAP can be positioned at an optimal location for wireless reception, remote from the router. Obvious disadvantages are more devices (more power, more space, more to manage) and potentially more cost.

Hope that helps.

 

[msl]

If you are going to have a gigabit switch, then why not just have an access point?

You still need a router to route the traffic between WAN and LAN. Neither a switch or an access point are a router.

 

[gonzo]

Thanks MSL. That is a great explanation. Yes, you are correct, I meant 6 Mb, not 6 MB.

I do run all wired equipment through my switch. I normally don't have more than 1 or 2 pieces of wireless equipment on my network at 1 time (I only have more than that when I have guests).

However, I do sometimes transfer files between my NAS and one of our laptops wirelessly. If it is large amounts of information, I normally plug in to an ethernet port because of how slow it transfers when communicating via the wireless. I think the limitation is more likely that my current wireless router is an old WRT54G, rather than bandwidth (my laptops are relatively new, but not N, so I'd have to upgrade those to take advantage of N).

Even with an upgrade to N, I still am not sure I'd hit 100 Mb, so yeah, I'm not sure a Gb port is that big of a requirement.

Thanks