Terry Kennedy
Regular Contributor
As I understand it, Gigabit Ethernet is mature enough that it simply "comes with the silicon" on modern chips. While an OEM can certainly still buy 10/100 (only) single- and perhaps dual-port chips, most of the chips with more ports (such as the switch-on-a-chip parts used in this class of router) support Gigabit already.
When a product uses a a Gigabit-capable chip but doesn't offer Gigabit to the end user, that's a marketing decision. Either to force the user to buy the "next model up" to use the Gigabit functionality that's present but disabled in the lower model, or to save a few pennies by not using a 10/100/1000 PHY (in the fewer and fewer cases where a separate PHY is needed at all), or a couple fraction-of-a-penny passive components.
As a prime example, I give you the Cisco 2811 (and lower) vs. the 2821 (and higher):
2811#sh controllers
Interface FastEthernet0/0
Hardware is MV96340
2821#sh controllers
Interface GigabitEthernet0/0
Hardware is MV96340
Notice anything fishy?
Also, jumbo frame support is often tied to Gigabit support. Jumbos can sometimes provide a huge performance benefit, though the amount of difference (if any) depends on the protocols being used, etc.
None of this diminishes the point the article raises about many wireless routers having a cable modem as their only wired device.
However, simply using Gigabit-capable hardware (or enabling it if it is present but off for marketing reasons) would make that same product more attractive to additional customers.
I had a very difficult time finding a wireless router which had 8 Gigabit ports (1 upstream, 7 attached devices) for a small business where I was replacing a cascaded stack of 4-port 10/100 switch/hub things. I found the WD My Net N900 (which I eventually ended up using), but it has a number of software defects which make it problematic. A wider choice of units would be greatly appreciated by me.
In N years time (no pun intended), will we be having this same discussion about 10 Gigabit ports? To turn that on its head, when was the last time you saw (or needed) an AUI port? Or a MII port?
When a product uses a a Gigabit-capable chip but doesn't offer Gigabit to the end user, that's a marketing decision. Either to force the user to buy the "next model up" to use the Gigabit functionality that's present but disabled in the lower model, or to save a few pennies by not using a 10/100/1000 PHY (in the fewer and fewer cases where a separate PHY is needed at all), or a couple fraction-of-a-penny passive components.
As a prime example, I give you the Cisco 2811 (and lower) vs. the 2821 (and higher):
2811#sh controllers
Interface FastEthernet0/0
Hardware is MV96340
2821#sh controllers
Interface GigabitEthernet0/0
Hardware is MV96340
Notice anything fishy?
Also, jumbo frame support is often tied to Gigabit support. Jumbos can sometimes provide a huge performance benefit, though the amount of difference (if any) depends on the protocols being used, etc.
None of this diminishes the point the article raises about many wireless routers having a cable modem as their only wired device.
However, simply using Gigabit-capable hardware (or enabling it if it is present but off for marketing reasons) would make that same product more attractive to additional customers.
I had a very difficult time finding a wireless router which had 8 Gigabit ports (1 upstream, 7 attached devices) for a small business where I was replacing a cascaded stack of 4-port 10/100 switch/hub things. I found the WD My Net N900 (which I eventually ended up using), but it has a number of software defects which make it problematic. A wider choice of units would be greatly appreciated by me.
In N years time (no pun intended), will we be having this same discussion about 10 Gigabit ports? To turn that on its head, when was the last time you saw (or needed) an AUI port? Or a MII port?