Quitch said:
Would a switch between some of the less important ports and the router have much of an impact.
None whatsoever. Most of these "routers" are actually just a switch routed to a WAN port and it is only routing between the built-in LAN switch and the WAN port. You'll need a GigE switch, of course, and if looks matter to you (or the "girlfriend factor" heh) you will want it the same brand and stackable.
I don't see it being a big downer on speed (assuming gigbit support), but what about QoS? I assume that would still work as normal.
Different routers offer different QoS solutions. Some are port based, others are IP based, and the more elaborate models even offer VLAN support.
Another thing about QoS. ATM supports QoS on the actual ADSL line and sometimes this is touted as a real feature (ok, so it
is[ a real feature), but ISPs are not likely to offer this level of control and it will most likely be UBR (uniform bitrate) (where the options are: UBR, CBR, and VBR). The main thing to consider here is really that the modem doesn't say it can do QoS because it has this feature because this has nothing to do with packet prioritization to the LAN.
Also, how would Windows QoS relate to that on the router? Would they have anything to do with one another, or remain entirely in their own domain (not that I imagine Windows QoS to be much help as it's only over the net connection I care)?
QoS on the router is often a forced (push) type where the OS has no impact. For example, it may regulate a type of packet (TCP, UDP, etc) to prioritize, a port, or the IP of the computer.
On WIndows you have something called 802.1p and this is something like a self-regulating QoS function where the packets tell the router what is important ("Hey, me first, me first!!"). I wouldn't worry too much about Windows' QoS functions as this is more to do with a single client prioritizing packets for itself. Because you want to avoid ping spikes (mainly gaming, right, or are we also thinking VoIP?) you really have to regulate this at the point of distribution (the router).
I'm not a big DLink fan though after using the DI-624+, with no e-mail support, different firmware revisions on each DLink site, no version which resolved all their issues, constant reboots etc.
I'm not a D-Link fan either, but, then again, I think most of these cheap home products suck. The problem is they seem to make too many models/configurations to adequately support them.
QoS though IS important. Does the 585 support QoS? I'll go check, but I'm sneaking around the web at work right now... takes ages to write a post this long
The Speedtouch 585 supports QoS. It is really more of a SOHO class device. Very robust and handles multiple connections (read: P2P). This comes with a built-in ADSL modem which is very good for long (high attenuation) lines. It should support ADSL 2/2+/Reach Extended with a firmaware update if not out of the box.
While we're on the topic, does anyone have any DSL modem reccomendations? Last time I bought a DLink modem to go with the DLink router, simply because I needed a setup and I knew it should work smoothly. Problem is that I have a hell of a time finding DSL modem reviews, and those I do find I have no idea if they are any good or I should be trusting them.
It really depends on if you want the modem integrated into one device. This can be good, and more or less necessary when using PPPoA (critical decision point!). It can also be bad because you have one point of failure (bad in this case, as you may lose multiple functions by one device nosediving).
The Speedtouch modems are good, as are most, to be honest. It may come down to DSLAM compatibility at times and the ISP really should be careful with how they provision lines, not sending your packets too far over copper. However, it's not a perfect world so it may be prudent to have a modem with a good transciever and, probably more importantly, a robust firmware/OS to handle troublesome connections.
Ironically, some older modems may perform much better as they were over-specced for the task. Since then, they have learned to cut costs and strip them down to the bare essentials. This sometimes makes for modems that fail exactly where they should instead of being forgiving.
Looked at the Speedtouch router, but it didn't look like it had QoS, and it was 100Mbs. I'm looking for gigabit because I intend to make use of the network, for backups, moving stuff to and from the HTPC, etc. Might setup a domain too and then there'll need to be some speedy access to remote home folders.
It has it and so may some other units that don't make this very clear. The 585 needed to be configured in CLI for QoS, but I think later firmwares bring this into the web configuration utility.
Over all, because you limit yourself to the DGL-4100 if you want GigE, you may want to consider a solution involving a GigE switch instead. It's not like you need 1Gbps to the WAN. Furthermore, you only get 4 switched ports on the DGL-4100 so you may need an additional GigE switch anyways. A 100mbps router/gateway hooked up to a 8-port GigE switch might work better, depending on how many connections you want to support.
In writing this, and confirming that you are in Britain, it would be interesting to know if you plan on using PPPoA to connect to the Net. This is critical because PPPoA often requires an all-in-one device, as "half bridge" modems* are rather rare. With PPPoA the DGL-4100 would not be a very clean solution (unless you already own a "half bridge" modem) and you would probably be best adviced to look at fully integrated gateway.
So, to make a good decision/recommendations, you really need to say if you are using PPPoA as this will change the factors considerably. PPPoE and IPoA do not have this "problem".
* A "half bridge" modem, also called IP extension by USR and some others as well as "DHCP spoofing," is a modem that can "simulate" being a bridge while keeping its PPPoA client active. In a gateway or a just a modem with NAT, you have the PPPoA client built-in and it manages your connection. With PPPoE you sometimes see the PPPoE client installed as software (a dialler). The problem is that when you use a router as the manager, PPPoE is not a problem because it's Ethernet, but it cannot speak ATM (the A in PPPoA). So, with PPPoE, for example, you set your modem to bridge - it only acts like a transceiver - and enable the PPPoE client in the router. But this cannot happen with PPPoA so the modem must keep doing the PPPoA functions: hence "half" bridge.
