In reply to a post by ian72:

The router if it includes more than one ethernet port actually is a switch. Essentially it has a built in switch that is no different in reality to an external switch. So, even without the separate switch you are actually just connecting 2 switches to each other, it just happens those switches have some additional bits in them to make them routers as well.

Very true - though my point was that it is best to avoid unnecessary switch-switch links in the local network, as they act as a potential bandwidth restriction between local computers. So long as the Internet bandwidth available is not faster than a single port on the router switch can manage, having your router's switch connected to the local switch via a single port isn't a potential bandwidth restriction.

More expensive switches allow aggregation of multiple links, but no home or small business Internet connection is capable of saturating a single gigabit port at present.

In reply to a post by David_W:

So long as the Internet bandwidth available is not faster than a single port on the router switch can manage, having your router's switch connected to the local switch via a single port isn't a potential bandwidth restriction.

Isn't that a little misleading? (Assuming I've understood you correctly!)

There's no reason I can see that intra-net transfers may have a much higher speed requirement than any connection to the internet, thus these "internal" links may slow things down.

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by David_W:

So long as the Internet bandwidth available is not faster than a single port on the router switch can manage, having your router's switch connected to the local switch via a single port isn't a potential bandwidth restriction.

Isn't that a little misleading? (Assuming I've understood you correctly!)

There's no reason I can see that intra-net transfers may have a much higher speed requirement than any connection to the internet, thus these "internal" links may slow things down.

If WAN traffic is incapable of saturating one port on the router switch, having a single router switch to main switch link is not a bandwidth restriction to this traffic. I am recommending (but did not say explicitly) that the remaining router switch ports are not used.

This leaves all the local clients on a single switch. Any decent modern switch can manage line speed on any combination of traffic.

In reply to a post by ian72:

I know it is already answered but a quick additional comment.

The router if it includes more than one ethernet port actually is a switch. Essentially it has a built in switch that is no different in reality to an external switch. So, even without the separate switch you are actually just connecting 2 switches to each other, it just happens those switches have some additional bits in them to make them routers as well.

I understood that multiple connections could be made via a switch or a hub, a switch being quicker as it knows what is at the end of each wire. Are all routers actually switches, or are some of them hubs? (assuming I am not barking up the wrong tree.

Of all those routers in retail stores in 2013 they will all have switches rather than the more old fashioned ethernet hub

Thank you

I have a couple of slightly older routers, and I think they will do nicely for adding capacity at the end of one of the runs in the house. I also have a couple of older hubs which I had been avoiding using, but for the traffic requirements, I don't think it would make a great deal of difference.