Hi all,

I read that there are additional features with bridging at the cost of lower throughput compared to switching. Can someone list out the pros / cons of Bridging and Switching on this device?

bridging
- more CPU power
- you can see trafic on all bridged ports
- speed of port is --> how many can handle CPU

switching
- less CPU power
- can not see traffic on interface
- speed is maximum of port (1Gbit)

bridging
- you can see trafic on all bridged ports

What does this mean? The device acts like a hub? Or is it port mirroring?

bridging
- you can see trafic on all bridged ports

What does this mean? The device acts like a hub? Or is it port mirroring?

You can monitor communication status in the web-console and WinBox and set Graphing to each of those interfaces.

Cause in the "switch group" you can monitor whole "switch group" but not the particular interface

bridging
- you can see trafic on all bridged ports

What does this mean? The device acts like a hub? Or is it port mirroring?

You can monitor communication status in the web-console and WinBox and set Graphing to each of those interfaces.

Cause in the "switch group" you can monitor whole "switch group" but not the particular interface

Ok thanks.

So I get wire speed with "Switching" but I lose the ability to monitor the traffic and generate traffic reports. I can live with that.

With switching will I be able to get basic stats like errors, dropped packets, link status etc in case I need to do any troubleshooting?

Yes, sure you will be able to see this information in corresponded columns.

With bridging you can fw the traffic in the group too.

Ok thanks. One more question

I'm signing up for a 100 Mbps line, and might upgrade to 200 Mbps later. I have a mixture of Gigabit and Fast Ethernet devices (about 20 including 2 NAS devices) . Wireless is only used for casual browsing, so wireless throughput is not a big factor.

I am also planning to use the proxy feature

Which will be a more suitable product for me? The RB493G with a wireless card or a RB2011UAS-2HnD-IN?

Deleted because not related.

Hello fullerms,

I don´t know your money budget, but what do you think about the RB800 + the RB816 in combination, can this perhaps better
manage your network and is also very powerful enough for a long time.

Thanks, but I need Gigabit Ethernet. Appears that the RB816 is only FE?

Deleted because not related.

The RB493 has two switch groups right? When there is traffic between ports connected to the different switch groups, is it handled in silicon or does have to go up to the CPU?

Of course it goes over CPU how would they rich each other otherwise

What is your use-case for this board? Are you suffering from performance?

Of course it goes over CPU how would they rich each other otherwise

What is your use-case for this board? Are you suffering from performance?

I need a Gigabit router capable of routing a 200 Mbps internet link to the local lan. While I do have a couple of Gigabit switch / routers, they cannot manage the LAN-WAN throughput I need. I am also trying to reduce the number of devices. Hence, the focus on the nine port RB493G.

Cant decide between the RB493G and RB2011

to clear some misconceptions if you talk about RouterOS and RouterBOARD then difference between bridging and switching is as follows:

bridge interface is software implementation of hardware switch and thus, features can be extended using software. Basic functionality is directly comparable to switching. Performance depends on speed and capabilities of the CPU

Switching is done in hardware by special chip that has certain limitations as all the possible features are predetermined by hardware switch and what configuration possibilities are and can made available via controlling interface. Since switching is not done by RouterOS then packets switched by hardware are not visible by RouterOS, hence no control over those.

to clear some misconceptions if you talk about RouterOS and RouterBOARD then difference between bridging and switching is as follows:

bridge interface is software implementation of hardware switch and thus, features can be extended using software. Basic functionality is directly comparable to switching. Performance depends on speed and capabilities of the CPU

Switching is done in hardware by special chip that has certain limitations as all the possible features are predetermined by hardware switch and what configuration possibilities are and can made available via controlling interface. Since switching is not done by RouterOS then packets switched by hardware are not visible by RouterOS, hence no control over those.

Thanks for the explanation.

Can you please help me to decide between RB493G and RB2011? Requirements are one post above yours.

Deleted because not related.

In short sentience
if I need to route 200mbit traffic I will never go for RB2011L or RB493 (for 100mbit yes but no for 200)

RB1100AH or RB1100AHx2