On 9/8/07, Brad Beyenhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, September 8, 2007 6:12 pm, James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
> > Brad Beyenhof wrote:
> >> it would probably be better to use a hub instead
> >> of a switch.
> >
> > Perhaps BB meant to use a simple switch instead of a combo router /
> > firewall / switch?
>
> Well, since the simply stated purpose was to add more ports to the
> router, I figured a hub would be the easiest way. I agree that a switch
> can perform this feat, but in my experience there's always a little more
> complication that way (mostly because switch hardware can vary, while
> nearly all hubs are the same).
>
> Not that I'm averse to complication, but unless there are specific
> bandwidth-sharing needs a hub should work just fine.
>
Nowadays switches are figuratively a dime a dozen, like $5 at the swap
meet or $16 -- $30 at Fry's. Sometimes less if there is a special
sale. Hubs are scarce because they haven't been manufactured
recently.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
