Talk:Router (computing)

motorola cellphone GPRS

I'am using the motorola phone as a modem and it doing will. The phone is giving the bandwith of about 912.26 mbps but it is not stable, it lapse and at to the point of disconnection. I would like to ask you people to discuss about this matter if the cell phone could be able to use as the modem while using the router. Then what kind of router could possible and compatible to the phone.

Forwarding

Some of the material in the beginning of the Applications section can be merged into the Forwarding section. I plan to get back to this but it is no problem if someone else gets to it first. ~Kvng (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The boxes in our homes are not really routers

The boxes in our homes and small businesses do not fit the traditional definition of a router. They simply forward information from our local networks to the ISP. It is most correct to say they are packet forwarders. They do not connect networks to networks, just a network to a single IP address at the ISP. 162.196.138.163 (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The usual home router "box" you are referring to integrates router, (often) DSL modem or ONT, switch, and wi-fi access point. For IPv4, they usually NAT but that doesn't make them any less routers. --Zac67 (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

What kind of routing do they do then? They just act as a gateway, which I don't really think is routing, or is it? TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Routing is forwarding between different IP networks (e.g. your local network and the ISP access network). Devices are called routers or gateways interchangingly. --Zac67 (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

When we send a document from our computer to our printer to be printed, our home router is acting as a router. The printer and computer both have different IP addresses and the computer sends packets of data to the router, which forwards them to the printer. Also when a web page is downloaded from the Internet, our home router has to route the packets to the IP address of the correct device on our home network. My home Wifi network currently has 5 cell phones, 3 laptops, 2 printers, a WII, 2 Firesticks, and an Alexa registered. Modern home modem/routers do a good deal of routing. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Not usually. Your printer and your computer are commonly in the very same IP network (subnet) and don't use a router to communicate. They're connected by a switch (forwarding by MAC address), often integrated within the home router (or a repeater hub, repeating everything). Even if one node is on Wi-Fi and the other on wired Ethernet, the home router *bridges* between them like an access point, forwarding just like a switch. --Zac67 (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

But, the devices in your home network are on a different subnet than the rest of the internet and so a two-port router (and NAT) in the box are in play when contacting devices and servers outside the home network. ~Kvng (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"Access, core, and distribution" section with failed verification tags

Hello!
I'm in the middle of work, but I found some possible sources for the section mentioned in this post title. I haven't read the guidelines for updating references yet, but I don't want to forget where I found some sources, so I'm making a note here.
Here are some sources for the access/core/distribution layers of the Cisco three-layer hierarchical model.
http://www.ciscopress.com/articles/article.asp?p=2202410&seqNum=4
https://www.mcmcse.com/cisco/guides/hierarchical_model.shtml
Thanks!
Imperatrixmundi (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Imperatrixmundi

Dictionaries contradict common knowledge

The dictionaries confirm that it is pronounced "rooter" or "rauter". I just asked a Cisco employee and she was pretty adamant about "rauter" and so was I, but the dictionaries tell a different story here. Elizium23 (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

But this is not a contradiction: the dictionary supports the pronunciation used by you and the Cisco employee, and it also supports the pronunciation used by other people. I'm English, but have lived somewhere else for long enough to be quite confused about it, but I think the BrE pronunciation is generally "rooter", distinguishing it from the tool for shaping wood, called a "router" (which routs). Imaginatorium (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

In the US, it's mostly a north-vs-south thing. Southerners tend to use /ˈraʊtər/ which includes the inhabitants of Silicon Valley and makes it more popular in the industry. Webster's Dictionary tells us it's /ˈruːtər/ for the network device, but then again they're based in Massachusetts. --Zac67 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Anecdote for anecdote: Working in the industry for decades in the northern US Midwest and New England, I've never heard anything but /ˈraʊtər/. 24.31.139.196 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I've worked internationally and in technical circles outside N. America I've heard the "rooter" pronunciation. ~Kvng (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted Elizium23's recent change. We don't have consensus or even a proposal on this yet. ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC

Which reliable sources should be used to cite the pronunciation of "router" in this article?

1. None (status quo)
2. Merriam-Webster
3. Dictionary.com
4. Oxford English Dictionary
5. Macmillan Dictionary
6. Technical documents: ???
7. Other

More than one answer is encouraged. Elizium23 (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• 2 and 4 for American and British usages. Elizium23 (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remove pronunciation per MOS:PRON#Appropriate use. This is a common word and doesn't require a pronunciation guide. The fact that pronunciation differs regionally isn't by itself sufficient reason to include a guide. If you really want, include a {{Wiktionary}} link box in the lead for the interested reader. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• None of the above - The note on pronunciation currently claims that the pronunciation is engvar dependent. It is not sufficient to cite an American and British dictionary separately to establish this - that's WP:SYNTH. We need to find a source or two that actually discusses this from all sides. I've tried to find such a source and couldn't come up with anything reliable. Pronunciation is an expected question readers will have so I would prefer to keep this in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  For AE, I've found RSes Merriam-Webster and Oxford Learner's listing both pronunciations, specifically for the network device. An interesting discussion points out there's been a shift in pronunciation in the US (or parts thereof) in the 1960s. I think if we do need to include the pronunciation here it should suffice to list the RS for the two AE variants. --Zac67 (talk)

  Merriam-Webster is claiming rau̇-tər for woodworking and rü-tər for networking. I don't think we can get a consensus of editors here to go with that alone. Oxford Learner's just lists the two pronunciations. That's one possible resolution for this: Just acknowledge that there are two pronunciations and don't get into which is used where. ~Kvng (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• 3: OED The 2010 3rd edition of the Oxford English Dictionary notes difference in pronunciation: Brit. /ˈruːtə/, U.S. /ˈraʊdər/. See: router, n.6, www.oed.com/view/Entry/272580. Alternatively, the pronunciation could be omitted altogether, since it is dependent on the dialectical pronunciation of "route" and follows American vs rest of the world split on that line.
• Remove pronunciation It's a common word. Regional differences in pronunciation are not reason to include in Wikipedia. Glendoremus (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remove pronunciation per what others have already said: "router" is an ordinary English word and according to [[[MOS:PRON#Appropriate us]] we don't give pronunciation for those; that's what dictionaries are for. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remove pronunciation Phonetic transcription is enought I think. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remove pronunciation I agree with others that the word is now in common usage and has multiple pronunciations depending up where in the world you are located. I don't know that it really adds to the article to have the various pronunciations here. - Dyork (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - As we're having here, I've had not insignificant discussions with IT professionals about how this word is pronounced. There has also been significant editing associated with this statement in the article over the years. I think we're doing readers a disservice by removing all discussion of pronounciation. I assure you a new editor will fly in shortly after we've closed this discussion and readd something (uncited) about pronunciation. If we kick the can, it's just going to promptly come back to us. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Proposal – to arrive at a solution I propose to change the current Router is pronounced /ˈruːtər/ in British English and is pronounced /ˈraʊtər/ in American and Australian English. to Router is pronounced /ˈruːtər/ in British English and is pronounced the same or /ˈraʊtər/ in American and Australian English which we've got RS for. --Zac67 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Zac67: I think it's good point here.

• Counter-proposal - as suggested multiple times in this discussion, remove pronunciation. Glendoremus (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• 2 and 4 for American and British usages. Per the previous section, there seem to be enough people convinced there is only one correct way for it to be worth showing otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

End of RFC

• @Elizium23, Deacon Vorbis, Finnusertop, Kvng, and Glendoremus: The RfC was started on June 12, 2020. I suggset to request someone un-involved to formally close it (as per WP:RFCEND, WP:CLOSE, WP:NHC). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I would assume an uninvolved closer would say there's a consensus to remove the pronounciation. And we can go ahead and do that. I've predicted that it will be restored in some form within a year's time. I wish we could agree on a more durable solution but maybe that's not possible right now. ~Kvng (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Router definition in intro

At the very beginning of the article it only reads that the router is just a networking device that performs this and that, however a router is actually a fully fledged computer, and this article's intro omits this important fact for an unknown reason. The fact that it is a computer always used to be a more or less standard definition across textbooks, educational courses, and any other definitions.

The router is a computer in the sense that it has all the main elements of such: it of course has a CPU and RAM, it also has a storage device, input and output ports, it has a fully featured OS that runs on top of that, you can run different apps and utilities within that OS, create and edit files, etc. and etc. This in big contrast to e.g. a switch (a classic unmanaged one) which doesn't have all that and is controlled by firmware (like e.g. your washing machine, which is also not a computer in the general sense).

In fact a router is very little different from any PC running a server OS and remotely accessed (i.e. no monitor and keyboard directly attached). In another fact, the router functionality is essentially realised simply by software on any PC with at least 2 NICs (network adapters), highlighting the fact that the hardware router is merely a computer with hardware optimized for the task, but you could in theory use any desktop PC given that it runs the relevant software.

I propose amending the intro with the fact that a router is foremost a specialised computer.

77.85.6.55 (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that most routers are specialized computers isn't all too relevant for their router functionality. The majority of digital devices are specialized computers today: smartphones, smartwatches, MP3 players, TVs, Bluray players, managed network switches, firewalls, etc – even cars or bikes. On most routers you can't run generic apps and utilities however, you can only use what's provided in the box. And many routers include hardware for forwarding or filtering, only very simple or virtual routers are software only. --Zac67 (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with these arguments. The important facts that a device is a computer are that you can run arbitrary programs written for that computer, and also that the device is under the control of an OS and not a firmware. Most devices you listed (players, smart-devices, etc., etc.) are electronic stuff, but not computers in the sense that they are running a fixed firmware which doesn't allow starting and running of applications (programs).

You do can run generic apps and utilities on routers, when those are written for that platform and OS, of course (similarly to being only able to run apps made for Windows in the Windows OS), and if the OS is not some closed/prohibitive type. Routers are classic computers, not just some sort of electronics.

Now, of course when I say "router" I don't mean the home "Wi-Fi routers" most private people have, but those aren't true routers anyway.

Also I do not agree that these particulars are not relevant because they don't affect the functionality. We are running an encyclopedia here which is supposed to describe what stuff truly is and how it internally works -- not just describe its "consumer merits" outside of the "black box" of the device.

77.85.6.55 (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, let's agree to disagree and see what other editors might say. --Zac67 (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 77.85.6.55, I think it should be characterized as a “specialized computer” in the intro. I feel the present intro isn’t sufficiently clear for nontechnical readers about what a router is. All routers are run by microprocessors. The word ‘computer’ is an adequate umbrella term for what it is, suitable for general readers --Chetvorno^TALK 12:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I can agree with the argument about the generic non-tech reader. For laypeople the umbrella term "computer" is appropriate here, as for them it usually implies a machine that can run arbitrary code (i.e. random apps and utilities), while "non-computer" electronics usually imply that their functionality is fixed (think of unmanaged switches or various modems).

I also wanted to reiterate, that the router function is predominantly a software one (think of a server, like Apache). It is just that manufacturers like Juniper or Cisco sell their router software (e.g. IOS) running atop specialized hardware (just like with the hardware servers), but otherwise all of that (i.e. Cisco IOS, Apache, Microsoft IIS) can run atop an ordinary desktop PC, it's just that it isn't practical.

However, lots of non-computer electronics' (a switch or modem) predominant feature is not a software, but a hardware one. And the software is not the main thing, it is just to enable the hardware, hence it is a "simple" firmware. You cannot practically make a switch out of a PC because the main thing about a switch are the 24 network ports, not its software. Same with a modem -- main purpose is hardware one, not the software.

So by this logic, a router is like a "network server". You wouldn't call a server a "networking device" or some other ambiguous term, would you? Servers are outright computers that run special server software. Same with routers. They are outright computers running special router software. In both cases that software runs atop a normal, albeit specialised, OS, and in turn this OS, generaly speaking, can run on any general-purpose PC.

77.85.6.55 (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm entirely OK with mentioning that a router is (usually) a specialized computer, although I fail to see the importance. However, some of your claims are plainly wrong, including

• the router function is predominantly a software one – Many/most enterprise-grade routers use a hardware forwarding plane, just the control plane is software. They're very similar to a layer-3 switch with added functionality, much of which is realized be using TCAM hardware. You simply can't run a BGP router with the entire global routing table efficiently in software, not even today.
• It is just that manufacturers like Juniper or Cisco sell their router software (e.g. IOS) running atop specialized hardware (just like with the hardware servers), but otherwise all of that (i.e. Cisco IOS, Apache, Microsoft IIS) can run atop an ordinary desktop PC – partially true but very often even virtualized routers use special hardware features present in the specialized hardware, e.g. Cisco ASA on Firepower. And you can't run IOS on generic hardware.
• You cannot practically make a switch out of a PC because the main thing about a switch are the 24 network ports, not its software. – you can add as many network ports as possible into a standard PC (a dozen doesn't seem hard) and run a bridging software, making it a (software) switch.
• Same with a modem -- main purpose is hardware one, not the software. – Mind you, some time ago modems were added using AMR or CNR/ACR boards, running most functions on the host CPU, in software.

The fact that you can use a standard PC with a bit of software as a router doesn't mean that a router is nothing more than a PC. 90%+ of all routers are purpose designed and there's no way to run arbitrary software on them. --Zac67 (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)