Network Switch?

[KhakiHat]

Kinda a random question.

 

I feel like it would work but could you connect a switch directly to a modem rather than through a router, then having the router/routers connected to the switch?

I'm asking this because I feel like it would be a cheaper option rather than having a beefy router with more ports. I also realize though that routers have have a built-in firewall more often then not.

 

So is being connected to the modem directly through a switch less secure than through a router? If so, is there precautions that you can establish to make your devices theoretically safer?

[Dougarooo]

27 minutes ago, KhakiHat said:

Kinda a random question.

 

I feel like it would work but could you connect a switch directly to a modem rather than through a router, then having the router/routers connected to the switch?

I'm asking this because I feel like it would be a cheaper option rather than having a beefy router with more ports. I also realize though that routers have have a built-in firewall more often then not.

 

So is being connected to the modem directly through a switch less secure than through a router? If so, is there precautions that you can establish to make your devices theoretically safer?

You're right you can connect a switch directly to a modem and then router(s) to the switch but there is no real point in doing that. If you're trying to buy a layer 3 switch then it's functionality is somewhat of a router but still lacks different abilities that a router has. If you're talking about just having a switch and no router at all I don't recommend this at all. If you have multiple routers connected to a switch then to a modem then be my guest.

 

Are you wanting a certain kind of setup or just a general topic question?

[LogicWeasel]

50 minutes ago, KhakiHat said:

I'm asking this because I feel like it would be a cheaper option rather than having a beefy router with more ports.

Your post didn't explain how you are actually saving any money.  A beefy router that has more ports?  That's called a layer-3 switch or an enterprise router, not for home use anyway.

 

You don't gain or lose any ports, you are still plugging a router into a switch in either order.  It's just that the order you're describing makes no sense because if it's truly just a basic cable modem for home internet, you have only 1 IP usable on that modem, so it's not like you can connect more than 1 comp to your modem/switch setup making that pointless.  The only way you could run more than 1 IP (a public one mind you since routers run NAT and not basic modems) is if you paid your ISP for a bank of public IPs and now that just gets silly running your home PC's on static public IPs (should have a very good and specific reason for doing that nonsense).

tl;dr - There's a reason that the standard is to connect modem to router to switch, that's how it's designed to work.  You can plug any size switch into that router for as many ports as your heart desires and you can use any router that your modem will work with.  Best of all your devices can actually talk to each other on a LAN as in the other scenario you don't even have a LAN for the switch, that's behind the router.

Edited March 31, 2019 by LogicWeasel

[2FA]

56 minutes ago, KhakiHat said:

I'm asking this because I feel like it would be a cheaper option rather than having a beefy router with more ports.

Why not just plug the switch into the router? Consumer routers generally have 4 LAN side ports. My setup at home has a 5 port switch connected to my router which has cables going to each room, my brother's room has a 5 port switch as well since he has a couple Ethernet devices, and then I have a 8 port switch in my own room with a few devices plugged in.

 

So:

ISP > Router > Switch > Devices

                                  \>Switch > Devices

[Lurick]

6 hours ago, Dougarooo said:

You're right you can connect a switch directly to a modem and then router(s) to the switch but there is no real point in doing that. If you're trying to buy a layer 3 switch then it's functionality is somewhat of a router but still lacks different abilities that a router has. If you're talking about just having a switch and no router at all I don't recommend this at all. If you have multiple routers connected to a switch then to a modem then be my guest.

 

Are you wanting a certain kind of setup or just a general topic question?

 

7 hours ago, KhakiHat said:

Kinda a random question.

 

I feel like it would work but could you connect a switch directly to a modem rather than through a router, then having the router/routers connected to the switch?

I'm asking this because I feel like it would be a cheaper option rather than having a beefy router with more ports. I also realize though that routers have have a built-in firewall more often then not.

 

So is being connected to the modem directly through a switch less secure than through a router? If so, is there precautions that you can establish to make your devices theoretically safer?

 

There is one big problem. The modem in a consumer environment will ONLY pass through ONE public address and the first router or directly connected device to request it will get it leaving all the others without internet connectivity.

[Donut417]

9 hours ago, KhakiHat said:

Kinda a random question.

 

I feel like it would work but could you connect a switch directly to a modem rather than through a router, then having the router/routers connected to the switch?

I'm asking this because I feel like it would be a cheaper option rather than having a beefy router with more ports. I also realize though that routers have have a built-in firewall more often then not.

 

So is being connected to the modem directly through a switch less secure than through a router? If so, is there precautions that you can establish to make your devices theoretically safer?

Firstly unless your doing a managed switch then this won't work. Your ISP gives 1 internet routable IP address, a router using NAT allows you to share that one IP with multiple computers. But if you connect a switch to the modem directly then each device connected will request an IP address from the ISP. You only get one. A managed switch gives you the ability to work around this. BUT generally they are not easy to set up. Also they are hell of expensive. 

[KhakiHat]

4 hours ago, Lurick said:

 

 

There is one big problem. The modem in a consumer environment will ONLY pass through ONE public address and the first router or directly connected device to request it will get it leaving all the others without internet connectivity.

That's a very important thing to know

[KhakiHat]

11 hours ago, LogicWeasel said:

Your post didn't explain how you are actually saving any money.  A beefy router that has more ports?  That's called a layer-3 switch or an enterprise router, not for home use anyway.

 

You don't gain or lose any ports, you are still plugging a router into a switch in either order.  It's just that the order you're describing makes no sense because if it's truly just a basic cable modem for home internet, you have only 1 IP usable on that modem, so it's not like you can connect more than 1 comp to your modem/switch setup making that pointless.  The only way you could run more than 1 IP (a public one mind you since routers run NAT and not basic modems) is if you paid your ISP for a bank of public IPs and now that just gets silly running your home PC's on static public IPs (should have a very good and specific reason for doing that nonsense).

tl;dr - There's a reason that the standard is to connect modem to router to switch, that's how it's designed to work.  You can plug any size switch into that router for as many ports as your heart desires and you can use any router that your modem will work with.  Best of all your devices can actually talk to each other on a LAN as in the other scenario you don't even have a LAN for the switch, that's behind the router.

By beefy router I was thinking more along the lines of buying a "gaming" router. There are some router options that have up to 8 ports but a lot of those cost $300+ for a decent one. At least from what I have seen.

[KhakiHat]

11 hours ago, Dougarooo said:

You're right you can connect a switch directly to a modem and then router(s) to the switch but there is no real point in doing that. If you're trying to buy a layer 3 switch then it's functionality is somewhat of a router but still lacks different abilities that a router has. If you're talking about just having a switch and no router at all I don't recommend this at all. If you have multiple routers connected to a switch then to a modem then be my guest.

 

Are you wanting a certain kind of setup or just a general topic question?

A certain setup.

[KhakiHat]

11 hours ago, 2FA said:

Why not just plug the switch into the router? Consumer routers generally have 4 LAN side ports. My setup at home has a 5 port switch connected to my router which has cables going to each room, my brother's room has a 5 port switch as well since he has a couple Ethernet devices, and then I have a 8 port switch in my own room with a few devices plugged in.

 

So:

ISP > Router > Switch > Devices

                                  \>Switch > Devices

As of late, we have been basically using an additional router as a sorta repeater for our ethernet ports. 

 

Modem --> router 1 (one device attached through ethernet) --> router 2 (4 devices attached through ethernet)

 

While we are getting good speeds individually, at times our internet will throttle in speed. If say a couple of people are on router 2 through ethernet, those devices will lack in speed or disconnect entirely randomly and router 1 runs effortlessly. My theory is that because we technically have 4 devices all attached through the same port connected from router 2 to router 1, only router 2 speeds are throttling.

 

 

This is my individual speed test on one of the computers in the house. I think it is also this high because this is the only device currently using router 2 (it fluctuates based on when people are home using their rigs).

 

The idea was modem --> switch --> router 1(used primarily for wifi)

                                                      --> router 2(used primarily for wifi)

                                                      --> devices

[2FA]

2 minutes ago, KhakiHat said:

As of late, we have been basically using an additional router as a sorta repeater for our ethernet ports. 

 

Modem --> router 1 (one device attached through ethernet) --> router 2 (4 devices attached through ethernet)

 

While we are getting good speeds individually, at times our internet will throttle in speed. If say a couple of people are on router 2 through ethernet, those devices will lack in speed or disconnect entirely randomly and router 1 runs effortlessly. My theory is that because we technically have 4 devices all attached through the same port connected from router 2 to router 1, only router 2 speeds are throttling.

 

 

This is my individual speed test on one of the computers in the house. I think it is also this high because this is the only device currently using router 2 (it fluctuates based on when people are home using their rigs).

 

The idea was modem --> switch --> router 1(used primarily for wifi)

                                                      --> router 2(used primarily for wifi)

                                                      --> devices

Connect router to modem. Connect like an 8 port switch to the router. If for some reason you need better wireless coverage, get a wireless access point and connect it to the router.

 

Also your Internet speed is of course going to fluctuate with multiple people using it, it's not like every person gets max on each device. The bandwidth gets shared, and will decrease accordingly.

[LogicWeasel]

7 minutes ago, 2FA said:

If for some reason you need better wireless coverage, get a wireless access point and connect it to the router.

100% This ^

This is the advice I was going to give.  People think you need more routers for more wifi coverage in a network, but that adds inefficiency.  What you want are Access Points fed by a cable that goes back to your switch or only router and it'll do the job much better.  APs are also superior to range extenders when you do this as those use wireless for backbone instead of a good ethernet cable to feed traffic upstream.  The hybrid offering lately is mesh networking (the Netgear Orbi or Google wifi) but those are kinda expensive compared to APs and are an ok all-in-one wifi solution if you just cannot run a cable to feed a less-expensive AP.

[KhakiHat]

29 minutes ago, 2FA said:

Connect router to modem. Connect like an 8 port switch to the router. If for some reason you need better wireless coverage, get a wireless access point and connect it to the router.

 

Also your Internet speed is of course going to fluctuate with multiple people using it, it's not like every person gets max on each device. The bandwidth gets shared, and will decrease accordingly.

The reason we have 2 routers wasn't as much for having more bandwidth but because the range of having just one was high enough for everyone in the house to have a reliable connection. But I understand what you mean. WiFi at our house is treated very secondary and unimportant in comparison to ethernet.

 

Our main concern is the amount of ethernet ports we have and having equal amounts of bandwidth across the devices. At times it will seem like a couple of devices have a great connection speed (on ethernet) and then the other devices will have a choppy connection. Is there a way to better equal bandwidth across devices so that one or two devices don't take most of the bandwidth and leave the other devices to suffer with slower speeds? 

 

I know it seems a little like an intentional internet bottleneck to limit bandwidth but if the overall connection on all the devices is more consistent and reliable, would it be worth it?

[mynameisjuan]

10 minutes ago, KhakiHat said:

Is there a way to better equal bandwidth across devices so that one or two devices don't take most of the bandwidth and leave the other devices to suffer with slower speeds? 

QoS or policing.