2
0
Consider a typical home network of say ~20 devices. Let's say I want to make it a IPv6 only. I want to do it with only gigabit-capable devices. I can do that through a router or an L3 switch.
Let's take these two as an example:
- 5 gigabit port router (e.g. http://routerboard.com/RB2011iL-IN)
- 24 gigabit port L3 switch (e.g. http://routerboard.com/CRS125-24G-1S-IN)
Assume IPv4 is not used and features such as VPN tunnels are also not important.
Are there any obvious issues with using L3 switch instead of a router in this scenario? E.g. lower security, lower throughput, etc.
To phase the question differently - why would you use one or another in similar scenarios?
Or to phase differently again - what are the scenarios for most people (residential or very small business users) that would require one or another or where picking one or another would be superior?
Edit:
To clarify, this is a new setup and I'm looking at two options:
a) The standard inside network <-> dummy switch <-> router <-> internet
, where all devices are connected to a dummy switch and the router is playing a firewall role
b) The router-less inside network <-> L3 switch <-> internet
, where devices are connected to an L3 switch that is at the same time playing a role of a firewall
Option a) is both more complex (two devices to administrate) and more costly (need to buy both a dummy switch and a router). Option b) is potentially less secure and could have other cons (that's what I'm trying to figure out).
Since this is a home / small business setup, I'm not interested in anything except the above, so NAT, VPN, other WAN-type connectivity options, BGP routing, etc. are not something I'm looking for. I.e. it's pretty much as bare-bones setup as any other residential customer - I just need to be able to connect to the Internet and have standard security.
Specifically, on the page for the L3 switch I linked to I found:
• RouterOS gateway/firewall/VPN router with passive cooling
So it should support all I need (and more), but then again I'm wary of the marketing and looking for some input about this. Most importantly, whether others have a similar setup (while preferred, absolutely not restricted to the one I linked - just something in the similar price range, e.g. up to $250 or so) and some facts about why the setup is good or not.
To clarify even more, I am leaning towards the L3 switch setup because it's simpler in my opinion. I am trying to figure out whether going with L3 switch has any obvious deficiencies that I would want to avoid, most importantly from security and throughput / latency standpoints.
2A "layer 3 switch" is a router, albeit usually with reduced functionality compared to a dedicated router, and of course a layer 3 switch includes a switch. – Michael Hampton – 2016-08-06T04:05:36.520
@MichaelHampton thanks - yeah, I guess I wanted to emphasize the "reduced functionality" part. In the scenarios outlined above, would you care about what you "lost" by choosing an L3 switch instead of a "full" router? – levant pied – 2016-08-08T20:40:16.813
Why do you need another device? Simply turn on IPv6 and use it...? Any switch will do. Or are you perhaps referring to/concerned about the Internet uplink? – Daniel B – 2016-11-28T23:25:19.357
@DanielB Building from scratch, so it would not be "another device" :) I'm considering two options: a) router + switch (as router has only 5 ports and I have more than 5 devices) or b) switch only (as it has 24 ports and that covers all my devices). I'm for the option b) as it's simpler and more cost-effective, but I don't want to be less secure or have lower throughput because of that, so wanted to know pros & cons from someone that's experienced. – levant pied – 2016-11-29T14:58:57.003
That still doesn’t really clear up whether this is about IPv6 Internet access (as well) or not. Also, you still need a (NAT) router for Internet access anyway. Also, in simple networks, a dumb switch is enough, so no administration there. – Daniel B – 2016-11-29T15:15:10.163
@DanielB I've updated the answer, hope it clarifies a bit. Yes, this is about IPv6 internal network + IPv6 internet access (no IPv4 involved anywhere). No, I don't need NAT for IPv6 native connectivity. Agreed, no administration for a dummy switch, but still 2 devices to take care of than 1 - given a relatively equal choice, I'd choose 1. Just trying to get some practical information about how "equal" the choice is given the requirements I have. – levant pied – 2016-11-29T15:26:08.753
You do realize that you (still) won’t be able to access the vast majority of the Internet using IPv6, right? Your Internet uplink is probably also a little more complicated than plugging in an Ethernet connector somewhere. – Daniel B – 2016-11-29T15:47:57.630
@DanielB I'm not saying I'll be accessing sites using IPv6 addresses or using AAAA DNS lookups, just that I'll be talking IPv6 with my ISP. I can definiely have IPv6 with my uplink (see e.g. https://community.infoblox.com/t5/IPv6-Center-of-Excellence/Home-Networking-with-IPv6/ba-p/5755). But this is going off-topic - I'm not asking whether I will be able to connect, but whether connecting given the requirements is a good choice.
– levant pied – 2016-11-29T19:04:57.187@AdamSilenko Based on the page I linked (copied above in the answer) the L3 switch has a firewall. Do you have any information that confirms this information on their site is false? If so, please share - that's what I'm looking for. As I said in the comment above, I don't need NAT, it's IPv6. I thought I explained what I need in great detail - let me know what additional information you think would be useful and I'll update the question. – levant pied – 2016-11-29T19:07:31.060
1You changed your questions. I remark that this is a Q&A forum, not intended for open discussions. – harrymc – 2016-11-29T19:31:04.790
1L3 switches and routers really, for all intents and purposes in a home/small business settings, can perform all the same tasks. Both can analyze packets up to the IP layer, both are capable of managing a route table, both can define and manage VLANs and both would have the same capabilities for defining basic firewall rules for security. Both would also have the ability to define NAT rules for a private internal network. In all honesty, most SOHO devices you buy that are branded as "routers" are still just variations on an L3 switch. – MaQleod – 2016-11-29T22:51:47.070
@harrymc I don't think I changed the question in any substantial way. I was just adding information based on the answers you guys provided and the additional details that seemed necessary to clarify what I originally wanted. I hope the updated question is clearer and it's certainly not my intent to drag this into a discussion, only to get some facts from people who know more or have had the same kind of setup issues and have valuable experience that could help me learn and decide what to do. – levant pied – 2016-11-29T23:17:25.570
Thanks @MaQleod - to play devil's advocate, what would I need a real router for? Reading e.g. this https://www.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/2a0hdd/stupid_question_router_vs_layer_3_switch_whats/ I see that there's a potential for e.g. slower processing of ACLs. Do you have experience with these with regard to such issues? Also, please put this into an answer if you have a moment.
– levant pied – 2016-11-29T23:31:57.160@levantpied: You are just looking for an excuse to buyi the L3 switch. Such a switch is just a mini-router tacked-on to an L2 switch. Only the better and costlier ones approach routers in capabilities, and $189 doesn't sound enough. – harrymc – 2016-11-30T06:46:27.777