Posted: 5/28/2014 4:38:37 AM EDT
|
I have a uverse router, all the ethernet connections on the back are used. I am planning on installing another device and would like to use ethernet vs wifi for a quicker connection. Can I use a ethernet splitter output from the router and attach 2 devices to it ? Will it work if I only use 1 device at a time ?
thanks |
|
Negative. What you want is your own router, as simple as you like, connected to the Uverse router. Then you can have as many connections as you wish, within the limits of good sense. Uverse router - your router - additional switch ( if necessary) - all your wired devices. Now if your Uverse router hands out enough DHCP addresses you can just toss a switch in there and skip the router but if it doesn't then you must have the router to provide the additional addresses. |
|
Get a dumb switch. Something like this one, which I picked up recently: http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-SG1005D-1000Mbps-Gigabit-Capacity/dp/B000N99BBC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1401281460&sr=8-2&keywords=unmanaged+switch If you have several devices in one place away from your UVerse router (say, a couple of PCs, a network printer, etc. all in one office), just run one line from the router to that location and install the switch there to feed all the devices. ETA: No need for a second router. The UVerse router will hand out plenty of IPs. I have 15 devices (wired and wireless), and it handles them all fine. Don't know what its limit is, but I'd be surprised if it was less than 255. |
|
Quoted: Get a dumb switch. Something like this one, which I picked up recently: http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-SG1005D-1000Mbps-Gigabit-Capacity/dp/B000N99BBC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1401281460&sr=8-2&keywords=unmanaged+switch If you have several devices in one place away from your UVerse router (say, a couple of PCs, a network printer, etc. all in one office), just run one line from the router to that location and install the switch there to feed all the devices. ETA: No need for a second router. The UVerse router will hand out plenty of IPs. I have 15 devices (wired and wireless), and it handles them all fine. Don't know what its limit is, but I'd be surprised if it was less than 255. |
|
Quoted:
What is your goal... Trying to add roku3, all the reviews state it is much better to use wire vs wifi. Thanks for all the posts so far. if I add a switch or router would I have to disconnect all the devices already plugged into the router? Or just add a short ethernet cable to connect switch to one "outlet" and use it for two devices? |
|
My Roku3 works fine with wireless. I have a Wireless-N hotspot, though. I'm not using the UVerse gateway's built-in wifi, since it's only Wireless-G. I will run a wire to it at some point, though. Just haven't gotten around to it. Not trying to discourage you from running one. |
|
Quoted:
Trying to add roku3, all the reviews state it is much better to use wire vs wifi. Thanks for all the posts so far. if I add a switch or router would I have to disconnect all the devices already plugged into the router? Or just add a short ethernet cable to connect switch to one "outlet" and use it for two devices? Quoted:
Quoted:
What is your goal... Trying to add roku3, all the reviews state it is much better to use wire vs wifi. Thanks for all the posts so far. if I add a switch or router would I have to disconnect all the devices already plugged into the router? Or just add a short ethernet cable to connect switch to one "outlet" and use it for two devices? Just plug a patch cord from one port on the router to the switch and then patch your additional devices into the switch. You can leave any device patched directly into the router there, won't hurt anything. |
|
I prefer to have each device do it's own thing. Not sure if you have other options for modems, but if you do, I prefer it for stability. I've overloaded quite a few routers with my network, and ended up building my own.
With that said... Get a switch. Don't cheap out though, so make sure it's gigabit, otherwise you'll be upgrading in a few years. Netgear makes a very excellent product, and is a very good bang for the buck (and with speed testing, have given me the best results). If you follow the sales, you can find them under $25 shipped for a five port. If you can, run all of your devices to the switch to maximize network throughput. Typically those cheap modems are 10/100 only, or have very poor hardware/firmware to handle heavy traffic. |
|
Quoted:
I prefer to have each device do it's own thing. Not sure if you have other options for modems, but if you do, I prefer it for stability. I've overloaded quite a few routers with my network, and ended up building my own. With that said... Get a switch. Don't cheap out though, so make sure it's gigabit, otherwise you'll be upgrading in a few years. Netgear makes a very excellent product, and is a very good bang for the buck (and with speed testing, have given me the best results). If you follow the sales, you can find them under $25 shipped for a five port. If you can, run all of your devices to the switch to maximize network throughput. Typically those cheap modems are 10/100 only, or have very poor hardware/firmware to handle heavy traffic. Honest question, but why? You can stream uncompressed blu-ray A/V at 48 Mbps (max for the standard). Why does anyone who isn't transferring around huge data files need anything more than 10/100? |
|
I don't have too many devices (just checked there are 4 ports on the router , all being used, so adding the switch will make 5 devices.
given the cheap price of a decent switch , I'll try it out because even though my house is small it appears to have kryptonite in the walls (I originally was using wi-fi for this computer which is approximately 10 feet away from the router and the connection fluctuated all the way from 2- 40 MB/s I got att to come out and run a hard wire after showing the crap speeds on a ookla printout |
|
Quoted:
Honest question, but why? You can stream uncompressed blu-ray A/V at 48 Mbps (max for the standard). Why does anyone who isn't transferring around huge data files need anything more than 10/100? Quoted:
Quoted:
I prefer to have each device do it's own thing. Not sure if you have other options for modems, but if you do, I prefer it for stability. I've overloaded quite a few routers with my network, and ended up building my own. With that said... Get a switch. Don't cheap out though, so make sure it's gigabit, otherwise you'll be upgrading in a few years. Netgear makes a very excellent product, and is a very good bang for the buck (and with speed testing, have given me the best results). If you follow the sales, you can find them under $25 shipped for a five port. If you can, run all of your devices to the switch to maximize network throughput. Typically those cheap modems are 10/100 only, or have very poor hardware/firmware to handle heavy traffic. Honest question, but why? You can stream uncompressed blu-ray A/V at 48 Mbps (max for the standard). Why does anyone who isn't transferring around huge data files need anything more than 10/100? For just one person using it at a time, he probably won't max it out right now, but stacking multiple streams plus network overhead together could cause interruption or glitches. But since you highlighted the whole sentence, I stated exactly why. In a few years everything will change. Things will hog up more bandwidth. Google fiber requires gigabit, and most modern cable modems recommend it. Might as well spend an extra $7 and get a switch that is gigabit and make it last a few more years. |
|
nice As a sidenote, how do those of you that have the roku3 like it..I have the "2" in the bedroom and it is good I was using ps3 on the tv that is getting the "3", because the wife likes the option of youtube & for some reason the ps3 I have does not get youtube. I'll still keep it hooked up for dvd/blu ray |
| Get an 8-port switch. I think this is the one I have, or something similar. Plug it into one of the ports on the router, plug extra stuff into the switch. |
|
Quoted:
For just one person using it at a time, he probably won't max it out right now, but stacking multiple streams plus network overhead together could cause interruption or glitches. But since you highlighted the whole sentence, I stated exactly why. In a few years everything will change. Things will hog up more bandwidth. Google fiber requires gigabit, and most modern cable modems recommend it. Might as well spend an extra $7 and get a switch that is gigabit and make it last a few more years. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I prefer to have each device do it's own thing. Not sure if you have other options for modems, but if you do, I prefer it for stability. I've overloaded quite a few routers with my network, and ended up building my own. With that said... Get a switch. Don't cheap out though, so make sure it's gigabit, otherwise you'll be upgrading in a few years. Netgear makes a very excellent product, and is a very good bang for the buck (and with speed testing, have given me the best results). If you follow the sales, you can find them under $25 shipped for a five port. If you can, run all of your devices to the switch to maximize network throughput. Typically those cheap modems are 10/100 only, or have very poor hardware/firmware to handle heavy traffic. Honest question, but why? You can stream uncompressed blu-ray A/V at 48 Mbps (max for the standard). Why does anyone who isn't transferring around huge data files need anything more than 10/100? For just one person using it at a time, he probably won't max it out right now, but stacking multiple streams plus network overhead together could cause interruption or glitches. But since you highlighted the whole sentence, I stated exactly why. In a few years everything will change. Things will hog up more bandwidth. Google fiber requires gigabit, and most modern cable modems recommend it. Might as well spend an extra $7 and get a switch that is gigabit and make it last a few more years. I got some errands to run, Im going to check out radio shack, best buy & tigerdirect Wont get the roku in mail until tomorrow, so I'm not too desperate ..yet |
|
Quoted:
For just one person using it at a time, he probably won't max it out right now, but stacking multiple streams plus network overhead together could cause interruption or glitches. But since you highlighted the whole sentence, I stated exactly why. In a few years everything will change. Things will hog up more bandwidth. Google fiber requires gigabit, and most modern cable modems recommend it. Might as well spend an extra $7 and get a switch that is gigabit and make it last a few more years. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I prefer to have each device do it's own thing. Not sure if you have other options for modems, but if you do, I prefer it for stability. I've overloaded quite a few routers with my network, and ended up building my own. With that said... Get a switch. Don't cheap out though, so make sure it's gigabit, otherwise you'll be upgrading in a few years. Netgear makes a very excellent product, and is a very good bang for the buck (and with speed testing, have given me the best results). If you follow the sales, you can find them under $25 shipped for a five port. If you can, run all of your devices to the switch to maximize network throughput. Typically those cheap modems are 10/100 only, or have very poor hardware/firmware to handle heavy traffic. Honest question, but why? You can stream uncompressed blu-ray A/V at 48 Mbps (max for the standard). Why does anyone who isn't transferring around huge data files need anything more than 10/100? For just one person using it at a time, he probably won't max it out right now, but stacking multiple streams plus network overhead together could cause interruption or glitches. But since you highlighted the whole sentence, I stated exactly why. In a few years everything will change. Things will hog up more bandwidth. Google fiber requires gigabit, and most modern cable modems recommend it. Might as well spend an extra $7 and get a switch that is gigabit and make it last a few more years. I was curious if you had knowledge of specific technologies that were dependent on LAN-side gigabit. I think my current network gear will wear out before I ever see anything like a fiber last-mile to my house, and I'd wager that's true for 80% of Americans. It's the "things" that will hog up more bandwidth (on the LAN side) that I'm legitimately interested in. I have a decent network and I use it pretty hard, so if there's more cool stuff I can do with it then I want to know what that is. |
|
Quoted:
Get a dumb switch. Something like this one, which I picked up recently: No such thing as a dumb switch. Hubs are dumb. Switches by definition are "smart" hubs. A hub merely presents all packets from one port to all other ports, slowing down traffic due to collisions and resent packets. Switches, OTOH, initially transfer to all ports, but once it learns where packets need to go it sends them only to that port, greatly lessening or even eliminating collisions. http://darron.net/what-is-the-difference-between-a-hub-and-a-switch/ Sorry, but we're going to have to demote you to Seaman_Crunch for that. 
|
|
Do what this poster says. (I have been a network guy since the dark ages LOL)
Quoted:
Get a dumb switch. Something like this one, which I picked up recently: http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-SG1005D-1000Mbps-Gigabit-Capacity/dp/B000N99BBC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1401281460&sr=8-2&keywords=unmanaged+switch If you have several devices in one place away from your UVerse router (say, a couple of PCs, a network printer, etc. all in one office), just run one line from the router to that location and install the switch there to feed all the devices. ETA: No need for a second router. The UVerse router will hand out plenty of IPs. I have 15 devices (wired and wireless), and it handles them all fine. Don't know what its limit is, but I'd be surprised if it was less than 255. |
|
Quoted:
No such thing as a dumb switch. Hubs are dumb. Switches by definition are "smart" hubs. A hub merely presents all packets from one port to all other ports, slowing down traffic due to collisions and resent packets. Switches, OTOH, initially transfer to all ports, but once it learns where packets need to go it sends them only to that port, greatly lessening or even eliminating collisions. http://darron.net/what-is-the-difference-between-a-hub-and-a-switch/ Sorry, but we're going to have to demote you to Seaman_Crunch for that. Quoted:
Quoted:
Get a dumb switch. Something like this one, which I picked up recently: No such thing as a dumb switch. Hubs are dumb. Switches by definition are "smart" hubs. A hub merely presents all packets from one port to all other ports, slowing down traffic due to collisions and resent packets. Switches, OTOH, initially transfer to all ports, but once it learns where packets need to go it sends them only to that port, greatly lessening or even eliminating collisions. http://darron.net/what-is-the-difference-between-a-hub-and-a-switch/ Sorry, but we're going to have to demote you to Seaman_Crunch for that. Ah, but as it/network guys a dumb switch means an unmanaged switch, ie it has no management interface or vlan capabilities. And just to clarify what Admiral_Crunch said you'll be connecting one of the 4 LAN ports on the Uverse router to one of the 4 or 8 ports on your new switch. Any cable will work as long as the switch is gigabit. You'll need a crossover cable if both ports are 10/100. That's another benefit to gigabit ports. Once you connect the router and the switch you can use all the remaining ports and they will all receive addresses and communicate with the Uverse router. Here are some drawings to help you out. http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/lanwan-basics/31442-how-to-add-ports-to-a-router |
|
Quoted: No such thing as a dumb switch. Hubs are dumb. Switches by definition are "smart" hubs. A hub merely presents all packets from one port to all other ports, slowing down traffic due to collisions and resent packets. Switches, OTOH, initially transfer to all ports, but once it learns where packets need to go it sends them only to that port, greatly lessening or even eliminating collisions. http://darron.net/what-is-the-difference-between-a-hub-and-a-switch/ Sorry, but we're going to have to demote you to Seaman_Crunch for that. Quoted: Quoted: Get a dumb switch. Something like this one, which I picked up recently: No such thing as a dumb switch. Hubs are dumb. Switches by definition are "smart" hubs. A hub merely presents all packets from one port to all other ports, slowing down traffic due to collisions and resent packets. Switches, OTOH, initially transfer to all ports, but once it learns where packets need to go it sends them only to that port, greatly lessening or even eliminating collisions. http://darron.net/what-is-the-difference-between-a-hub-and-a-switch/ Sorry, but we're going to have to demote you to Seaman_Crunch for that. Dumb switch = unmanaged switch. Any switch is smart compared to a hub, yes, but an unmanaged switch is dumb compared to a managed one. |
|
Hey all, quick update:
picked up roku & hdmi cable I had ordered off amazon ($100 shipped) picked up switch at radio shack ($27) 5 port netgear 10/100 had an extra ethernet cable laying around total time aprox 15 min total cost:127 daughter is playing angry birds as I type again, thanks to all the responses... |