I am moving into a new place (its a house, I live downstairs they live upstairs), where there will only be access to one ethernet wire. I need to make that one wire into 4. Do I need to get a hub run the one wire to the hub and then attach the hub to my own router? Or are there other ways of doing this? I thought of using wireless, but I am not sure if the people who own the house will be willing to go that route.

Thanks for any help

8/21/2005 7:32:25 PM

first what kind of router do you have??? If you are using a router in the correct terminology then I would just use the router you have to run 4 computers.

Wireless is good as long as you are not trying to access the router from to far away or through material that would interfere with the wirless signal. (if I were the home owner this would be the less obtrusive option with less wires)

8/21/2005 7:49:57 PM

Let me explain the setup a little better. Top floor is where the modem and home owners router (not wireless) is located. Home owner dropped one ethernet wire from his router through the floor to my living room. So what I want to do is take that one ethernet wire and plug it into my own router, and then run my 3 PCs off that router. What I want to know is do I need to have a hub inbetween?

8/21/2005 8:30:57 PM

if I'm understanding correctly, no...a router is like a built-in hub, you could say

it does everything a hub does...and more

8/22/2005 12:24:12 AM

A router works on the network layer, while a hub is only the physical layer.

Most routers in the market have 4 port switches in them, that work on the MAC layer.

So, in your setup, you need to run that cable through a switch or a hub.

A switch would be better if you plan to generate a lot of LAN traffic as it gives every port the max B/w.

But if all you're doing is getting onto the Internet, a 100Mbps hub would be fine.

8/22/2005 12:31:33 AM

If you use your router instead of a switch then you will be on your own private network which you can't use file sharing or printer sharing with the other people's computers. If you used a switch you would be a part of their private network.
Other than that there is not much difference in your case using a router instead of a switch.

Hub is layer 1
Switch is layer 2
Router is layer 3
As they have stated most routers are a combination of switch and router

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 5:02 AM. Reason : .]

8/22/2005 5:01:25 AM

hub or switch is fine in your case. If you were on a large LAN I'd say get a hub and not a switch. Too many switches on a LAN will fuck it up.

8/22/2005 5:42:13 AM

You don't need a router, since there's already one conneced to the modem that takes care of NATing the ISP IP address, and presumably hands out DHCP as well.

All you need is a 10/100 switch. Most consumer grade switches either have an uplink port or support auto-mdix, so you don't have to mess with a crossover cable. Plug your switch into the ethernet cable you have, and plug your PCs into the switch.

The price difference between a 4 port hub and a 4 port switch is small enough these days that there's really no reason to get a hub.

Quote :

"If you use your router instead of a switch then you will be on your own private network which you can't use file sharing or printer sharing with the other people's computers"

not necessarily true. If you don't use the "WAN" port on the router to uplink to the other router, you will avoid double NATing your traffic, and the router will functionally act as a switch.

Quote :

"hub or switch is fine in your case. If you were on a large LAN I'd say get a hub and not a switch. Too many switches on a LAN will fuck it up."

What makes you think that?

8/22/2005 9:30:56 AM

Quote :

"You don't need a router, since there's already one conneced to the modem that takes care of NATing the ISP IP address, and presumably hands out DHCP as well. "

This is true that he doesn't need a router but he already has a router so I don't think he should buy a switch when he has a router already. I think it is a good idea for him to double NAT the traffic because this will increase security from his other house mates.

8/22/2005 10:02:25 AM

I missed the part about him already having a router. If that's the case, then, yes, use it as a switch.

Double NATing is all dependent on whether he wants to be on the same LAN as the rest of the house. I would hope that security wouldn't be a big issue within the same house.

8/22/2005 10:08:25 AM

I don't agree with double NATs. Port forwarding, for example, just complicates stuff, and you'd need all that in a domestic environment.

Also, can someone comment on how too many switches mess up the LAN?

8/22/2005 11:04:17 AM

I would like to know also

8/22/2005 11:39:19 AM

The only thing that I can think of where too many switches (vs. a bunch of hubs) could mess things up is if they all have broadcast forwarding turned on, it *might* be easier to create a broadcast storm. But I'm not sure about that...

8/22/2005 8:52:53 PM

I don't think so

8/22/2005 8:59:31 PM

all switches better be forwarding broadcasts

or nobody will be getting IP addresses.

8/22/2005 10:46:22 PM

I think there are a couple of somewhat obvious issues.

BobbyD might know for sure, but I know there's a maximum diameter imposed by stp on bridging domains, something around 5 or 6 hops, assuming 802.1d.

At extremes, a flat(switched) network would have slower stp convergence. Much larger MAC tables in each of the switches may cause larger lookup delays and would probably require a shorter aging-time to be configured. There would probably be poorer link utilization as a result of stp loops, causing certainly links to never be utilized until failure.

There would also obviously be greater overhead traffic caused by having one monstrous broadcast and multicast domain.



[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 11:15 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2005 11:10:37 PM

but it would take much more than that simple house setup to cause any of that

8/22/2005 11:14:34 PM

^agreed.

I said "At extremes", and was directing my answer at the question

Quote :

"can someone comment on how too many switches mess up the LAN"

I suppose I was assuming a LAN, not the LAN in discussion.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 11:17 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2005 11:17:49 PM

Quote :

"but I know there's a maximum diameter imposed by stp on bridging domains, something around 5 or 6 hops, assuming 802.1d."

there's a 16 "hop" soft limitation for 802.1d STP domains. However, this isn't necessarily a function of the number of switches, so much as it is a function of how many times you can feasibly daisy chain switches. You can easily have 1000 switches within the same STP domain and still be well within the diameter.

The main point I was wanting to make was that the number of switches alone doesn't imply disaster, but the complexity of the physical and logical topology combined with the number of switches will determine how problematic the scalability problems mentioned by cdubya will be.

8/22/2005 11:26:26 PM

^ how does that 16 hop limit convert to diameter. I'm finding 7 hops to be the default diameter limit.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 11:32 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2005 11:32:16 PM

yeah it's 7

durrr....

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 11:39 PM. Reason : on that note, i obviously need to go to sleep. ]

8/22/2005 11:34:57 PM