This might be a dumb question... (gigabyte WAN vs 10/100 LAN for 1000mbps fiber internet)

[fireaza]

Hi guys,
I've recently moved to Japan and since I'm from Australia, I'm very excited to finally have good internet! As of this month, 1000mpbs fiber internet has become available, but this will require me to buy a new router to support it.

I had been looking at the Buffalo WHR-1166D, since it specially mentions "Gigabit WAN port offers 1000 Mbps connection from high-speed Internet service provider" in it's product description. However, I notice that it also says the LAN only supports 1/100. This might be a dumb question, but wouldn't this mean that the device can take in internet at 1000mpbs, but it can only output the internet at 100mpbs to any device connected to the ethernet ports, thus killing your speed? This seem like a really bizarre design choice if true. Should I be looking at a different model that does support 10/100/1000 LAN? The WZR-1750DHP model looks like it supports that.

Thanks!

 

[Alpha3031]

You'd need to use the WAN ports, with a Cat6 cable, I believe.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

That's correct, the WAN connection will run at 1Gbps but clients connected to the LAN will only run at a maximum of 100Mbps. As well as the router needing to support 1Gbps LAN, so to do the network adaptors of the clients.

CAT5e can theoretically support 1Gbps, it just isn't certified for it. CAT6 is certified, so go for that if you want peace of mind.

 

[bill001g]

CAT5e can theoretically support 1Gbps, it just isn't certified for it. CAT6 is certified, so go for that if you want peace of mind.

This is totally false. Cat5e is certified to run 1g and always has been since it came out. Cat6 is the cable that has no purpose. It was designed to run 1g over 2 pair rather than 4 pair but all manufactures of nic cards went with a 4 pair design so it was dead from the day it came to market. It now can run 10g at short distances but anyone who can afford 10g interface will use cat6a that is certified to 100 meters.

 

[fireaza]

That's correct, the WAN connection will run at 1Gbps but clients connected to the LAN will only run at a maximum of 100Mbps. As well as the router needing to support 1Gbps LAN, so to do the network adaptors of the clients.

CAT5e can theoretically support 1Gbps, it just isn't certified for it. CAT6 is certified, so go for that if you want peace of mind.

Well, I know my PC can support 1000mpbs on it's ethernet port, but as you said, the LAN on this router only supports 100mbps. So unless I'm misunderstanding what you've said, this router will handicap my internet speed to 100mbps which is quite a lot slower than the 1000mbps that will be coming into the device. Why would they design the router like this? This seems like a really weird choice, if you're looking for a router that will take in a 1000mbps connection, wouldn't you also want it to deliver it at that speed?

So if that's the case, I should look at a different router. Would the Buffalo WZR-1750DHP2/WZR-1750DHP (I think the 2 is a newer model) be more what I should be looking at? Or can you suggest a model? That reason I'm going for Buffalo is because this brand seems to be the easiest to find on Amazon Japan.

 

[Alpha3031]

Use the WAN Port, and it will work at 1 Gbps.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

CAT5e can theoretically support 1Gbps, it just isn't certified for it. CAT6 is certified, so go for that if you want peace of mind.

This is totally false. Cat5e is certified to run 1g and always has been since it came out. Cat6 is the cable that has no purpose. It was designed to run 1g over 2 pair rather than 4 pair but all manufactures of nic cards went with a 4 pair design so it was dead from the day it came to market. It now can run 10g at short distances but anyone who can afford 10g interface will use cat6a that is certified to 100 meters.

As far as I'm aware, Cat5e isn't gigabit certified for two reasons:

1. Cat5e requires four twisted pairs for gigabit speed, but cables are available with two twisted pairs for telephoney purposes.
2. Cat5e doesn't support gigabit speed at its theoretical maximum cable length of 100m.

Whilst Cat5e can provide giagbit speed, it can only do so within the confines above, hence why it's not certified. If I'm wrong, please point me to the correct information.

 

[fireaza]

Use the WAN Port, and it will work at 1 Gbps.

But the WAN port is where I plug in the cable from the modem, how am I suppose to plug my PC into that?

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

That's correct, the WAN connection will run at 1Gbps but clients connected to the LAN will only run at a maximum of 100Mbps. As well as the router needing to support 1Gbps LAN, so to do the network adaptors of the clients.

CAT5e can theoretically support 1Gbps, it just isn't certified for it. CAT6 is certified, so go for that if you want peace of mind.

Well, I know my PC can support 1000mpbs on it's ethernet port, but as you said, the LAN on this router only supports 100mbps. So unless I'm misunderstanding what you've said, this router will handicap my internet speed to 100mbps which is quite a lot slower than the 1000mbps that will be coming into the device. Why would they design the router like this? This seems like a really weird choice, if you're looking for a router that will take in a 1000mbps connection, wouldn't you also want it to deliver it at that speed?

So if that's the case, I should look at a different router. Would the Buffalo WZR-1750DHP2/WZR-1750DHP (I think the 2 is a newer model) be more what I should be looking at? Or can you suggest a model? That reason I'm going for Buffalo is because this brand seems to be the easiest to find on Amazon Japan.

Yes, with a 1Gbps WAN connection and a 100Mbps LAN connection, your clients won't get the full 1Gbps speed. I've not used a gigabit router myself so I can't recommend anything specific, but I consider Draytek to be the best manufacturer out there.

Obviously you can't use the WAN port to connect LAN clients. Even if the port wasn't in use, it can't be configured to work on the LAN.

 

[bill001g]

CAT5e can theoretically support 1Gbps, it just isn't certified for it. CAT6 is certified, so go for that if you want peace of mind.

This is totally false. Cat5e is certified to run 1g and always has been since it came out. Cat6 is the cable that has no purpose. It was designed to run 1g over 2 pair rather than 4 pair but all manufactures of nic cards went with a 4 pair design so it was dead from the day it came to market. It now can run 10g at short distances but anyone who can afford 10g interface will use cat6a that is certified to 100 meters.

As far as I'm aware, Cat5e isn't gigabit certified for two reasons:

1. Cat5e requires four twisted pairs for gigabit speed, but cables are available with two twisted pairs for telephoney purposes.
2. Cat5e doesn't support gigabit speed at its theoretical maximum cable length of 100m.

Whilst Cat5e can provide giagbit speed, it can only do so within the confines above, hence why it's not certified. If I'm wrong, please point me to the correct information.

How about posting where you got YOUR information. I suspect you are confusing cat5 and cat5e cable or you are referring to CCA cable which does not meet the TIA/EIA standard and therefore is not really cat5e.

Unfortunately the standard is in the ieee 802.3 which is copyrighted material so if you want a actual link to the real official source you are going to have to pay for it, i can not post even parts of it.

So here is a old document from the IEEE where they say you can use cat 5 cable to run 1000base-t
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/tutorial/march98/mick_170398.pdf
And here is the latest version of the TIA/EIA standard that cable is manufactured to.
http://www.csd.uoc.gr/~hy435/material/TIA-EIA-568-B.2.pdf

So even some cat5 cable can run 1000base-t and this was way back more than 15 years ago. Pretty much rather than trying to figure out which cat5 cable meets standard and which does not they came out with cat5e which actually exceeds the requirements for 1000base-t

So now that you have your PROOF what do you have to say for your source of information.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

CAT5e can theoretically support 1Gbps, it just isn't certified for it. CAT6 is certified, so go for that if you want peace of mind.

This is totally false. Cat5e is certified to run 1g and always has been since it came out. Cat6 is the cable that has no purpose. It was designed to run 1g over 2 pair rather than 4 pair but all manufactures of nic cards went with a 4 pair design so it was dead from the day it came to market. It now can run 10g at short distances but anyone who can afford 10g interface will use cat6a that is certified to 100 meters.

As far as I'm aware, Cat5e isn't gigabit certified for two reasons:

1. Cat5e requires four twisted pairs for gigabit speed, but cables are available with two twisted pairs for telephoney purposes.
2. Cat5e doesn't support gigabit speed at its theoretical maximum cable length of 100m.

Whilst Cat5e can provide giagbit speed, it can only do so within the confines above, hence why it's not certified. If I'm wrong, please point me to the correct information.

How about posting where you got YOUR information. I suspect you are confusing cat5 and cat5e cable or you are referring to CCA cable which does not meet the TIA/EIA standard and therefore is not really cat5e.

Unfortunately the standard is in the ieee 802.3 which is copyrighted material so if you want a actual link to the real official source you are going to have to pay for it, i can not post even parts of it.

So here is a old document from the IEEE where they say you can use cat 5 cable to run 1000base-t
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/tutorial/march98/mick_170398.pdf
And here is the latest version of the TIA/EIA standard that cable is manufactured to.
http://www.csd.uoc.gr/~hy435/material/TIA-EIA-568-B.2.pdf

So even some cat5 cable can run 1000base-t and this was way back more than 15 years ago. Pretty much rather than trying to figure out which cat5 cable meets standard and which does not they came out with cat5e which actually exceeds the requirements for 1000base-t

So now that you have your PROOF what do you have to say for your source of information.

Before you start to get shirty, I was genuinely wondering where your information came from. I'm not interested in disproving or elevating myself above other people, and if I'm wrong, I like to know so I don't make the same mistake.

My advice was based on what I learnt in college and my experience as a Network Engineer.

 

[fireaza]

That's correct, the WAN connection will run at 1Gbps but clients connected to the LAN will only run at a maximum of 100Mbps. As well as the router needing to support 1Gbps LAN, so to do the network adaptors of the clients.

CAT5e can theoretically support 1Gbps, it just isn't certified for it. CAT6 is certified, so go for that if you want peace of mind.

Well, I know my PC can support 1000mpbs on it's ethernet port, but as you said, the LAN on this router only supports 100mbps. So unless I'm misunderstanding what you've said, this router will handicap my internet speed to 100mbps which is quite a lot slower than the 1000mbps that will be coming into the device. Why would they design the router like this? This seems like a really weird choice, if you're looking for a router that will take in a 1000mbps connection, wouldn't you also want it to deliver it at that speed?

So if that's the case, I should look at a different router. Would the Buffalo WZR-1750DHP2/WZR-1750DHP (I think the 2 is a newer model) be more what I should be looking at? Or can you suggest a model? That reason I'm going for Buffalo is because this brand seems to be the easiest to find on Amazon Japan.

Yes, with a 1Gbps WAN connection and a 100Mbps LAN connection, your clients won't get the full 1Gbps speed. I've not used a gigabit router myself so I can't recommend anything specific, but I consider Draytek to be the best manufacturer out there.

Obviously you can't use the WAN port to connect LAN clients. Even if the port wasn't in use, it can't be configured to work on the LAN.

That is a really weird design choice, is it that expensive to include 1000mbps LAN ports? Even if you think most people won't have 1000mbps internet to use with it, why bother advertising that the WAN port supports 1000mbps? Well anyway, seems like I need to make sure I find a router that supports 1000mbps on the LAN ports as well as the WAN port.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

Actually, cost probably is the main factor. How many residential users around the world have 1Gbps WAN? 100Mbps far exceeds the download and upload speed for the vast majority of people all over the world, so manufacturers are far less likely to accommodate 1Gbps, even if the extra cost is low. When you multiply that extra cost by the number of routers sold, it soon adds up and people will be less likely to pay for it.

 

[bill001g]

CAT5e can theoretically support 1Gbps, it just isn't certified for it. CAT6 is certified, so go for that if you want peace of mind.

This is totally false. Cat5e is certified to run 1g and always has been since it came out. Cat6 is the cable that has no purpose. It was designed to run 1g over 2 pair rather than 4 pair but all manufactures of nic cards went with a 4 pair design so it was dead from the day it came to market. It now can run 10g at short distances but anyone who can afford 10g interface will use cat6a that is certified to 100 meters.

As far as I'm aware, Cat5e isn't gigabit certified for two reasons:

1. Cat5e requires four twisted pairs for gigabit speed, but cables are available with two twisted pairs for telephoney purposes.
2. Cat5e doesn't support gigabit speed at its theoretical maximum cable length of 100m.

Whilst Cat5e can provide giagbit speed, it can only do so within the confines above, hence why it's not certified. If I'm wrong, please point me to the correct information.

How about posting where you got YOUR information. I suspect you are confusing cat5 and cat5e cable or you are referring to CCA cable which does not meet the TIA/EIA standard and therefore is not really cat5e.

Unfortunately the standard is in the ieee 802.3 which is copyrighted material so if you want a actual link to the real official source you are going to have to pay for it, i can not post even parts of it.

So here is a old document from the IEEE where they say you can use cat 5 cable to run 1000base-t
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/tutorial/march98/mick_170398.pdf
And here is the latest version of the TIA/EIA standard that cable is manufactured to.
http://www.csd.uoc.gr/~hy435/material/TIA-EIA-568-B.2.pdf

So even some cat5 cable can run 1000base-t and this was way back more than 15 years ago. Pretty much rather than trying to figure out which cat5 cable meets standard and which does not they came out with cat5e which actually exceeds the requirements for 1000base-t

So now that you have your PROOF what do you have to say for your source of information.

Before you start to get shirty, I was genuinely wondering where your information came from. I'm not interested in disproving or elevating myself above other people, and if I'm wrong, I like to know so I don't make the same mistake.

My advice was based on what I learnt in college and my experience as a Network Engineer.

When someone very strongly claims you are wrong most people quickly do a google search to see maybe they were wrong or misunderstood something.

It takes 2 seconds to find a wikipeida page that states what I did but you get all kinds of "experts" on this forum who will claim wikipedia isn't good enough which i why I posted the ieee standards.

You instead of making any effort at all just came back and stated things off the top of your head like you are some expert in the field.

 

[abailey]

That is a really weird design choice, is it that expensive to include 1000mbps LAN ports? Even if you think most people won't have 1000mbps internet to use with it, why bother advertising that the WAN port supports 1000mbps? Well anyway, seems like I need to make sure I find a router that supports 1000mbps on the LAN ports as well as the WAN port.

I agree. With residential gateways (or routers if you will) it is rare to see a port arrangement like this. Either they are all 1000Mbit or all 100Mbit. It is of limited use to have a Gigabit WAN port and four 100Mbit ports (in a home environment).

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

CAT5e can theoretically support 1Gbps, it just isn't certified for it. CAT6 is certified, so go for that if you want peace of mind.

This is totally false. Cat5e is certified to run 1g and always has been since it came out. Cat6 is the cable that has no purpose. It was designed to run 1g over 2 pair rather than 4 pair but all manufactures of nic cards went with a 4 pair design so it was dead from the day it came to market. It now can run 10g at short distances but anyone who can afford 10g interface will use cat6a that is certified to 100 meters.

As far as I'm aware, Cat5e isn't gigabit certified for two reasons:

1. Cat5e requires four twisted pairs for gigabit speed, but cables are available with two twisted pairs for telephoney purposes.
2. Cat5e doesn't support gigabit speed at its theoretical maximum cable length of 100m.

Whilst Cat5e can provide giagbit speed, it can only do so within the confines above, hence why it's not certified. If I'm wrong, please point me to the correct information.

How about posting where you got YOUR information. I suspect you are confusing cat5 and cat5e cable or you are referring to CCA cable which does not meet the TIA/EIA standard and therefore is not really cat5e.

Unfortunately the standard is in the ieee 802.3 which is copyrighted material so if you want a actual link to the real official source you are going to have to pay for it, i can not post even parts of it.

So here is a old document from the IEEE where they say you can use cat 5 cable to run 1000base-t
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/tutorial/march98/mick_170398.pdf
And here is the latest version of the TIA/EIA standard that cable is manufactured to.
http://www.csd.uoc.gr/~hy435/material/TIA-EIA-568-B.2.pdf

So even some cat5 cable can run 1000base-t and this was way back more than 15 years ago. Pretty much rather than trying to figure out which cat5 cable meets standard and which does not they came out with cat5e which actually exceeds the requirements for 1000base-t

So now that you have your PROOF what do you have to say for your source of information.

Before you start to get shirty, I was genuinely wondering where your information came from. I'm not interested in disproving or elevating myself above other people, and if I'm wrong, I like to know so I don't make the same mistake.

My advice was based on what I learnt in college and my experience as a Network Engineer.

When someone very strongly claims you are wrong most people quickly do a google search to see maybe they were wrong or misunderstood something.

It takes 2 seconds to find a wikipeida page that states what I did but you get all kinds of "experts" on this forum who will claim wikipedia isn't good enough which i why I posted the ieee standards.

You instead of making any effort at all just came back and stated things off the top of your head like you are some expert in the field.

I did go away and do some research, hence why there's a 90 minute gap between our posts. I couldn't find any concrete information either way, so I asked. Note that I said "as far as I'm aware", which is hardly the statement of an expert.

At any rate, I'm calling time on this discussion.