Le 14.10.2013 10:37, Joe a écrit :
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:53:50 +1300 Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 09:19:18PM +0100, Joe wrote: > > though most include routers and other > > useless stuff. > > ..when it is normally customary to refer to them as routers. > Pedants might call them modem-routers, but nobody else does. Um, you can get routers without a modem, so the difference is important and not just pedantry!Yes. I know that as well, having two myself. But I am unusual in that respect, as exceedingly few homes or small-to-medium size businesses have any need for even one.In the large majority of networks, 'router' is taken to mean the (A)DSLmodem-router-DNS-server-DHCP-server-firewall-etc that plugs into the telephone line.
And which does the interface between 2 networks. This one being the most important role from the end-user point of view, I think that the word router is good enough for them.
I know I wont teach that to anyone here, but modems are not computing stuff, at all. They are simply here to transform numeric signals to analogical ones, and vice versa. I wonder why someone would explicitly call the boxes "router-modem"... It would be like calling PC: computer-screen-mouse-keyboard-windows ( or linux, this one was for the trolling). Nobody does, because it is obvious that the computer will need some interfaces with humans. For routers, it is quite obvious that it will need to be able to communicate with networks it is connected to, so really no use for the modem word here.