Choosing Between Switch or Router for Small Home Network Extension: Covering Entire Network

Hello,

I have internet from a local supplier and cables located in the house in such a way that I would need to choose a device to cover the entire network. I see it this way:

Provider modem ??? (router / switch) sockets
^
|
(ground floor cable)
|
v
router devices (TV, console, NAS etc.)

If the diagram is not clear, then a brief description - 2 cables would come out of the modem. One to the router on the ground floor, to which devices close to each other and this router would be connected. A second cable from the modem would be connected to a switch or router, while 4 cables would go out to a different room on the floor. Unfortunately, I cannot connect the cables to the router to the first floor due to their physical location - the modem and cables to the first floor are in the garage, the router in the salon, because it is best to sow.

So the question is what will be the best in this case - router or switch?

A lot depends on your internet provider.
Most providers allow you to connect only one device to the modem. This device then gets an IP address (public or private) from the modem. In this case, to connect more devices you need to insert a router with NAT function (basically all home routers have it) and possibly a switch if the router has no LAN ports. Then your devices will get private addressing (internal network) from the router. Another advantage of placing a router is that the devices inside the network are inaccessible from the Internet, which dramatically increases their security.

wniedzie wrote:

A lot depends on your internet provider.
Most providers allow you to connect only one device to the modem. This device then gets an IP address (public or private) from the modem. In this case, to connect more devices you need to insert a router with NAT function (basically all home routers have it) and possibly a switch if the router has no LAN ports. Then your devices will get private addressing (internal network) from the router. Another advantage of placing a router is that the devices inside the network are inaccessible from the Internet, which dramatically increases their security.

Thanks for the answer. The modem pool splits the modem, so the router is more of an AP. Due to the fact that I have NAS, I would prefer some devices to be visible "from the outside", which I do with port forwarding in the modem, but that's another matter. My goal is to expand the network by one floor and that all the devices on the floor and ground floor can see each other (playing movies on the TV on the floor from NAS on the ground floor, etc.).

Hello

copytco wrote:

Provider modem ???

What cable comes from the ISP's modem?
What supplier is this?

copytco wrote:

2 cables would come out of the modem

It looks like a router, not the modem modem itself!
If so and has four RJ45 sockets (built-in switch), each such socket can be connected either to its own router (as you already have) or to the switch depends on how many devices you want to connect.

copytco wrote:

what will be the best in this case - router or switch?

Router and / or switch.
Router to separate the internal network and switch to branch it.

antek1cza wrote:

Hello
What cable comes from the ISP's modem?
What supplier is this?

Normal network with RJ45 plug, supplier is GreenLan (optical fiber).

antek1cza wrote:

It looks like a router, not the modem modem itself!
If so and has four RJ45 sockets (built-in switch), each such socket can be connected either to its own router (as you already have) or to the switch depends on how many devices you want to connect.

I currently have a version with 1 RJ45 socket, but I can request a version with 2 or 4 sockets. So at the moment I would have to connect it like this:

Provider modem ??? (router / switch) sockets
^
|
(ground floor cable)
|
v
router devices (TV, console, NAS etc.)

So 1 cable from the modem to the switch / router, from which the cables would go to the ground floor (second router) and floor (directly to the devices).

antek1cza wrote:

Router and / or switch.
Router to separate the internal network and switch to branch it.

I don't need to isolate too much, so I think the switch in that case. Will the switch work in a modified system as above?

OK, i.e. the modem is a router and the router is an accesspoint
Either way, I suggest you don't multiply your subnet. To this end, the routers (which are to act as accesspoints) would be connected to LAN using a lan port, not a wan port. You just need to disable the DHCP server on them.

wniedzie wrote:

OK, i.e. the modem is a router and the router is an accesspoint
Either way, I suggest you don't multiply your subnet. To this end, the routers (which are to act as accesspoints) would be connected to LAN using a lan port, not a wan port. You just need to disable the DHCP server on them.

Thanks. Yes, the router is currently connected to the LAN port, it has DHCP off. Writing that you propose not to multiply subnets then I understand that the switch is ok?

copytco wrote:

I currently have a version with 1 RJ45 socket, but I can request a version with 2 or 4 sockets.

I would check with the provider how many devices this modem-router supports. If this limit does not limit you, you do not need additional routers. Switch is enough.