The usual modem vs. router argument.

I'm fed up explaining to people the advantages of using ADSL routers over
modems - and why modems are bad news.



Can anyone point me in the direction of a reasonable document/site that
points out and details the differences and the advantages of using a router?

Thanks

Rupert

Rupert <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I'm fed up explaining to people the advantages of using ADSL routers over
> modems - and why modems are bad news.

I think you have some confusion there. I think what you mean is the
difference between Ethernet and USB modems/routers.

A modem and router/modem only differ in that a modem has a single
connection and the router/modem has multiple connections for more than
one machine to connect to the Internet (Or local network). We commonly
use the term 'router' to signify the multi-port combined modem/router
that is used for small home networks, but a plain router is just that,
and does not have a modem in it.

An Ethernet Modem or modem/router is the most reliable and easy to
setup, as you only need to administer it from a web browser, and no
drivers are needed to operate it.

A USB based modem or modem/router requires the addition of software
drivers, as USB is not a natural networking protocol. This is likely to
introduce unreliability issues, particularly if you have other USB
devices.

> Can anyone point me in the direction of a reasonable document/site that
> points out and details the differences and the advantages of using a router?

You'll probably get as many suggestions there as you will if you asked
the question directly here.

This might be as good a place as any:

http://www.adslguide.org.uk/

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
<http://andyhewitt.webhop.net/>
(updated Nov. 2005)

Andy Hewitt wrote in
1h7emmd.6ghixj1y9v85hN%(E-Mail Removed):

> Rupert <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I'm fed up explaining to people the advantages of using ADSL routers
>> over modems - and why modems are bad news.
>
> I think you have some confusion there. I think what you mean is the
> difference between Ethernet and USB modems/routers.
>
> A modem and router/modem only differ in that a modem has a single
> connection and the router/modem has multiple connections for more than
> one machine to connect to the Internet (Or local network). We commonly
> use the term 'router' to signify the multi-port combined modem/router
> that is used for small home networks, but a plain router is just that,
> and does not have a modem in it.

But "a router" in common parlance (as in an ADSL wireless router) usually
uses NAT (network address translation) and usually includes a firewall. It
is the NAT and the firewall which make a router inherently much safer than
an ADSL modem.

"Andy Hewitt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1h7emmd.6ghixj1y9v85hN%(E-Mail Removed). ..
>
> I think you have some confusion there. I think what you mean is the
> difference between Ethernet and USB modems/routers.
>
> A modem and router/modem only differ in that a modem has a single
> connection and the router/modem has multiple connections for more than
> one machine to connect to the Internet (Or local network). We commonly
> use the term 'router' to signify the multi-port combined modem/router
> that is used for small home networks, but a plain router is just that,
> and does not have a modem in it.
>
> An Ethernet Modem or modem/router is the most reliable and easy to
> setup, as you only need to administer it from a web browser, and no
> drivers are needed to operate it.
>
> A USB based modem or modem/router requires the addition of software
> drivers, as USB is not a natural networking protocol. This is likely to
> introduce unreliability issues, particularly if you have other USB
> devices.
>

You have not mentioned some major differences!

Firstly the modem draws its power from the PC. Some of these modems can
exceed the USB specifications (as shown when tested) and effect the overall
performance of the PC due to this. In some extreme cases these modems have
stopped other USB devices working due to this flaw.

Second, the USB modems need to utilise the PC's resources to actually
function.

NAT

Build in hardware firewall

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definit...212924,00.html

"Pete M Williams" <postmaster@localhost> wrote:

[Snipped Text]

> > A USB based modem or modem/router requires the addition of software
> > drivers, as USB is not a natural networking protocol. This is likely to
> > introduce unreliability issues, particularly if you have other USB
> > devices.
> >
>
> You have not mentioned some major differences!
>
> Firstly the modem draws its power from the PC.

Is that true of *all* USB modems? If so, then I certainly wouldn't use
one, I never buy port powered USB devices bigger than a card reader.

> Some of these modems can
> exceed the USB specifications (as shown when tested) and effect the overall
> performance of the PC due to this. In some extreme cases these modems have
> stopped other USB devices working due to this flaw.

That applies to any USB device powered by the port though, it doesn't
affect USB modems per se', it's the nature of USB as a whole. I've seen
reports of even self powered devices screwing up whole USB chains.

> Second, the USB modems need to utilise the PC's resources to actually
> function.

Erm, I said that bit, in a different way.

> NAT
>
> Build in hardware firewall

Usually, yes.

> http://whatis.techtarget.com/definit...212924,00.html

Quite interesting.

Of course the argument is different depending on whether the OP was
asking for the full technical differences, or what the differences are
in operation to the end user. If the latter, which is what I was
assuming, then the technical reasons don't really matter as much.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
<http://andyhewitt.webhop.net/>
(updated Nov. 2005)

Andy Hewitt wrote:
> "Pete M Williams" <postmaster@localhost> wrote:
>
> [Snipped Text]
>
>>> A USB based modem or modem/router requires the addition of software
>>> drivers, as USB is not a natural networking protocol. This is
>>> likely to introduce unreliability issues, particularly if you have
>>> other USB devices.
>>>
>>
>> You have not mentioned some major differences!
>>
>> Firstly the modem draws its power from the PC.
>
> Is that true of *all* USB modems? If so, then I certainly wouldn't use
> one, I never buy port powered USB devices bigger than a card reader.
>
>> Some of these modems can
>> exceed the USB specifications (as shown when tested) and effect the
>> overall performance of the PC due to this. In some extreme cases
>> these modems have stopped other USB devices working due to this flaw.
>
> That applies to any USB device powered by the port though, it doesn't
> affect USB modems per se', it's the nature of USB as a whole. I've
> seen reports of even self powered devices screwing up whole USB
> chains.
>
>> Second, the USB modems need to utilise the PC's resources to actually
>> function.
>
> Erm, I said that bit, in a different way.
>
>> NAT
>>
>> Build in hardware firewall
>
> Usually, yes.
>
>>
>> http://whatis.techtarget.com/definit...212924,00.html
>
> Quite interesting.
>
> Of course the argument is different depending on whether the OP was
> asking for the full technical differences, or what the differences are
> in operation to the end user. If the latter, which is what I was
> assuming, then the technical reasons don't really matter as much.

One thing everybody appears to have missed is that if you are using a
USB modem, if the service fails, very often you have to do a complete
reboot on order to reconnect, whilst a router (if properly configured,
off course) will just renegotiate the connection...

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:08:48 +0000, (E-Mail Removed) (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

>
>This might be as good a place as any:
>
>http://www.adslguide.org.uk/


However, page <http://www.adslguide.org.uk/guide/summary.asp> (on the subject
of routers) says "Computer enthusiasts or businesses can use a router to
connect multiple computers to the Internet without the need for connection
sharing software such as Microsoft Internet Connection Sharing (ICS)."

It's correct, of course, but where many posters here would suggest a combined
modem/router over a plain USB/PCI modem, it would be for reasons of:

1) staying connected, where the router keeps the connection established, and
provides that 'always on' state for fast access to pages from any PC you
have on your LAN

2) NAT, offering a bit of protection against unwanted incoming traffic, and
the possibility of built in firewall on the router

3) no USB concerns, ethernet will run happily on non-Windows XP kit, from old
Win 95/MS-DOS PCs to linux and Apple gear. No "find a suitable USB driver"
problems and no USB power/compatibility/sleep situations either.

4) the ease of having multiple PCs without needing a PC (whether Windows or
even using linux/BSD) dedicated as a gateway/firewall system (yes, they
may be suitable apps on an old and cheap/worthless PC, but power consumed
is quite a bit more than for a router/modem unit)

[ I know you mentioned at least one aspect, but that's the type of summary I
would tend to give... maybe I should put it on a web page :-] Peter M.

Peter M <us-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:08:48 +0000, (E-Mail Removed) (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>
> >
> >This might be as good a place as any:
> >
> >http://www.adslguide.org.uk/
>
>
> However, page <http://www.adslguide.org.uk/guide/summary.asp> (on the subject
> of routers) says "Computer enthusiasts or businesses can use a router to
> connect multiple computers to the Internet without the need for connection
> sharing software such as Microsoft Internet Connection Sharing (ICS)."

Well, I wouldn't need to anyway ;-)

> It's correct, of course, but where many posters here would suggest a combined
> modem/router over a plain USB/PCI modem, it would be for reasons of:
>
> 1) staying connected, where the router keeps the connection established, and
> provides that 'always on' state for fast access to pages from any PC you
> have on your LAN
>
> 2) NAT, offering a bit of protection against unwanted incoming traffic, and
> the possibility of built in firewall on the router

Indeed, although that cannot always be assumed. I just checked the
routers on Scan.com and about a third of them didn't have a firewall.

> 3) no USB concerns, ethernet will run happily on non-Windows XP kit, from old
> Win 95/MS-DOS PCs to linux and Apple gear. No "find a suitable USB driver"
> problems and no USB power/compatibility/sleep situations either.

Indeed, that's also one of the reasons I use a router.

> 4) the ease of having multiple PCs without needing a PC (whether Windows or
> even using linux/BSD) dedicated as a gateway/firewall system (yes, they
> may be suitable apps on an old and cheap/worthless PC, but power consumed
> is quite a bit more than for a router/modem unit)
>
> [ I know you mentioned at least one aspect, but that's the type of summary I
> would tend to give... maybe I should put it on a web page :-] Peter M.

Ooh, a Wikipedia page perhaps? ;-)

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
<http://andyhewitt.webhop.net/>
(updated Nov. 2005)

"Kraftee" <(E-Mail Removed) please we're bristish.com>
wrote:

[Snipped Text]

> > Of course the argument is different depending on whether the OP was
> > asking for the full technical differences, or what the differences are
> > in operation to the end user. If the latter, which is what I was
> > assuming, then the technical reasons don't really matter as much.
>
> One thing everybody appears to have missed is that if you are using a
> USB modem, if the service fails, very often you have to do a complete
> reboot on order to reconnect, whilst a router (if properly configured,
> off course) will just renegotiate the connection...

Really. Why does anybody ever use these things then?

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
<http://andyhewitt.webhop.net/>
(updated Nov. 2005)

On 11 Dec 2005 13:46, (E-Mail Removed) (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

>Really. Why does anybody ever use these things then?

a) they know no better
b) they come "free" with the account
c) they only need to be pushed into a USB socket
d) they hate paying for something to replace something they assume
will do the job "OK" (and they may be OK, depending on your PC,
OS, spare USB ports, existing firewall, etc, etc, etc).