Overview
This guide provides side-by-side comparisons of common networking technologies to help you make informed decisions for your network design and implementation.
Network Devices
Switches vs Routers
| Feature | Switch (Layer 2) | Router (Layer 3) |
|---|---|---|
| OSI Layer | Data Link (Layer 2) | Network (Layer 3) |
| Addressing | MAC addresses | IP addresses |
| Function | Forwards frames within network | Routes packets between networks |
| Broadcast Domain | Doesn't separate | Separates broadcast domains |
| Collision Domain | Separates per port | Separates per interface |
| Speed | Wire-speed (fast) | Varies (routing overhead) |
| Intelligence | MAC table | Routing table |
| Use Case | Connect devices in LAN | Connect different networks |
| Example | Connect computers in office | Connect office to internet |
| Cost | Lower | Higher |
| Configuration | Minimal (unmanaged) | Required |
When to use Switch: Connecting devices within same network/subnet
When to use Router: Connecting different networks, internet gateway, inter-VLAN routing
Hub vs Switch vs Router
| Feature | Hub | Switch | Router |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSI Layer | Physical (Layer 1) | Data Link (Layer 2) | Network (Layer 3) |
| Operation | Broadcasts to all ports | Forwards to specific port | Routes between networks |
| Intelligence | None | MAC learning | Routing protocols |
| Efficiency | Very low (collisions) | High | Varies |
| Security | None (sniffing easy) | Port isolation | ACLs, firewall |
| Use Today | Obsolete | Primary LAN device | Gateway device |
| Cost | Lowest | Low-Medium | Medium-High |
Recommendation: Never use hubs. Use switches for LAN, routers for inter-network connectivity.
Managed vs Unmanaged Switch
| Feature | Unmanaged Switch | Managed Switch |
|---|---|---|
| Configuration | Plug-and-play | Web/CLI configuration |
| VLANs | No | Yes |
| QoS | No | Yes |
| Port Mirroring | No | Yes |
| SNMP Monitoring | No | Yes |
| Link Aggregation | No | Yes |
| Spanning Tree | Basic | Advanced (RSTP, MSTP) |
| Port Security | No | Yes (MAC filtering) |
| Cost | $20-100 | $100-5,000+ |
| Use Case | Home, small office | Enterprise, VLANs needed |
| Complexity | None | Requires knowledge |
When to use Unmanaged: Home, simple small office (< 10 devices), no VLANs
When to use Managed: VLANs required, traffic prioritization, monitoring needed, > 20 devices
Transport Protocols
TCP vs UDP
| Feature | TCP | UDP |
|---|---|---|
| Full Name | Transmission Control Protocol | User Datagram Protocol |
| Connection | Connection-oriented | Connectionless |
| Reliability | Guaranteed delivery | Best-effort (no guarantee) |
| Ordering | Maintains packet order | No ordering |
| Error Checking | Yes (checksums + retransmission) | Basic checksum only |
| Flow Control | Yes (windowing) | No |
| Congestion Control | Yes | No |
| Speed | Slower (overhead) | Faster (minimal overhead) |
| Header Size | 20-60 bytes | 8 bytes |
| Use Cases | HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, SSH, Email | DNS, DHCP, VoIP, Streaming |
| When packet loss acceptable | No | Yes |
| Real-time sensitive | No (delays for retransmit) | Yes (prefers speed) |
Use TCP when: Reliability critical (file transfers, web browsing, email, financial transactions)
Use UDP when: Speed critical, small packet loss acceptable (VoIP, video streaming, gaming, DNS)
IPv4 vs IPv6
| Feature | IPv4 | IPv6 |
|---|---|---|
| Address Length | 32-bit | 128-bit |
| Address Format | Dotted decimal (192.168.1.1) | Hexadecimal (2001:db8::1) |
| Address Space | ~4.3 billion | 340 undecillion |
| Address Types | Unicast, Multicast, Broadcast | Unicast, Multicast, Anycast |
| Header Size | 20-60 bytes | 40 bytes (fixed) |
| Fragmentation | Routers and hosts | Hosts only |
| NAT Required | Yes (due to scarcity) | No (abundance of addresses) |
| Configuration | Manual or DHCP | SLAAC, DHCPv6, manual |
| Security | Optional (IPsec) | Built-in (IPsec mandatory) |
| Adoption | Universal | Growing (~40% traffic) |
| ISP Support | 100% | Varies (60-90%) |
Current Status: IPv4 still dominant, dual-stack (both IPv4 and IPv6) recommended
Future: IPv6 adoption increasing, IPv4 will coexist for decades
Routing Protocols
Distance-Vector vs Link-State
| Characteristic | Distance-Vector (RIP, EIGRP) | Link-State (OSPF, IS-IS) |
|---|---|---|
| Algorithm | Bellman-Ford | Dijkstra (SPF) |
| Knowledge | Direction and distance to destination | Complete network topology |
| Updates | Periodic (full/incremental) | Event-triggered (only changes) |
| Convergence | Slow (seconds to minutes) | Fast (subsecond to seconds) |
| CPU/Memory | Lower | Higher |
| Bandwidth Usage | Higher (periodic updates) | Lower (only changes) |
| Scalability | Limited | Excellent (with areas) |
| Loop Prevention | Split horizon, poison reverse | Topology knowledge |
| Metrics | Simple (hop count, composite) | Cost (bandwidth-based) |
| Configuration | Easier | More complex |
Use Distance-Vector: Small networks, simple topologies, limited resources
Use Link-State: Large networks, fast convergence required, hierarchical design
Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) Comparison
| Feature | RIP | EIGRP | OSPF | IS-IS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Distance-vector | Advanced distance-vector | Link-state | Link-state |
| Standard | Open (RFC) | Cisco proprietary | Open (RFC) | Open (ISO) |
| Metric | Hop count | Composite (BW, delay) | Cost (bandwidth) | Cost |
| Max Hops | 15 | 255 | None | None |
| Convergence | Slow | Very fast | Fast | Fast |
| VLSM Support | RIPv2 yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Areas | No | No | Yes (mandatory Area 0) | Yes (optional) |
| Scalability | Poor | Good | Excellent | Excellent |
| CPU/Memory | Low | Medium | Medium-High | Medium-High |
| Multicast | 224.0.0.9 | 224.0.0.10 | 224.0.0.5/6 | N/A (Layer 2) |
| Use Case | Legacy only | Cisco-only networks | Enterprise standard | Service providers |
Recommendation: OSPF for multi-vendor enterprise, EIGRP if all-Cisco, never use RIP for new deployments
WiFi Standards
802.11 Generations
| Standard | Name | Year | Frequency | Max Speed | Range | Best Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 802.11b | - | 1999 | 2.4 GHz | 11 Mbps | Good | Obsolete |
| 802.11g | - | 2003 | 2.4 GHz | 54 Mbps | Good | Legacy IoT |
| 802.11n | WiFi 4 | 2009 | 2.4/5 GHz | 600 Mbps | Good | Minimum today |
| 802.11ac | WiFi 5 | 2014 | 5 GHz | 3.5 Gbps | Good | Current standard |
| 802.11ax | WiFi 6 | 2019 | 2.4/5 GHz | 9.6 Gbps | Better | Recommended |
| 802.11ax | WiFi 6E | 2020 | 6 GHz | 9.6 Gbps | Good | Future-proof |
| 802.11be | WiFi 7 | 2024 | 2.4/5/6 GHz | 46 Gbps | Better | Cutting-edge |
Minimum for new deployment: WiFi 6 (802.11ax)
Best value: WiFi 6 for most, WiFi 6E for high-density or new builds
2.4 GHz vs 5 GHz vs 6 GHz
| Feature | 2.4 GHz | 5 GHz | 6 GHz (WiFi 6E) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range | Best | Good | Good |
| Wall Penetration | Excellent | Moderate | Moderate |
| Speed | Lower | Higher | Highest |
| Channels (Non-overlap) | 3 (1, 6, 11) | 24 | 59 |
| Interference | High (BT, microwave) | Low | None |
| Device Support | Universal | Common | Latest devices only |
| DFS Required | No | Some channels | No |
| Best For | IoT, range | Clients, speed | High-density, future |
| Congestion | Very high | Medium | None |
Recommendation:
- 2.4 GHz: IoT devices, long-range, legacy devices
- 5 GHz: Laptops, phones, streaming, most clients
- 6 GHz: Enterprise, new deployments, high-performance needs
Security Protocols
WPA2 vs WPA3
| Feature | WPA2 | WPA3 |
|---|---|---|
| Introduced | 2004 | 2018 |
| Encryption | AES-CCMP | AES-GCM |
| Key Exchange | Pre-shared key (PSK) | SAE (Dragonfly) |
| Forward Secrecy | No | Yes |
| Brute Force Protection | Vulnerable | Protected |
| Dictionary Attacks | Vulnerable offline | Not possible offline |
| Public WiFi | Risky | Safer (individualized encryption) |
| Device Support | Universal | 2019+ devices |
| Enterprise (802.1X) | Available | Enhanced (192-bit) |
| Status | Still widely used | Recommended |
Recommendation: WPA3 if all devices support it, WPA2/WPA3 mixed mode for transition
Never use: WEP, WPA (original), Open networks (except guest with captive portal)
VPN Protocols
| Protocol | Speed | Security | NAT Traversal | Mobile | Use Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenVPN | Good | Excellent | Good | Yes | General purpose |
| IPsec | Fast | Excellent | Poor | Yes | Site-to-site |
| WireGuard | Very fast | Excellent | Excellent | Yes | Modern choice |
| L2TP/IPsec | Moderate | Good | Fair | Yes | Legacy clients |
| PPTP | Fast | Weak | Excellent | Yes | Obsolete (insecure) |
| IKEv2/IPsec | Fast | Excellent | Excellent | Yes | Mobile, MacOS/iOS |
| SSTP | Moderate | Good | Excellent | Limited | Windows-focused |
Recommendation:
- Remote access: WireGuard or OpenVPN
- Site-to-site: IPsec or WireGuard
- Mobile: IKEv2/IPsec or WireGuard
- Never use: PPTP (broken security)
Cable Types
Ethernet Cable Categories
| Category | Max Speed | Max Distance | Shielding | Use Case | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cat5 | 100 Mbps | 100m | No | Obsolete | Lowest |
| Cat5e | 1 Gbps | 100m | Optional | Minimum today | Low |
| Cat6 | 10 Gbps (55m) / 1 Gbps (100m) | 55m / 100m | Optional | Recommended | Medium |
| Cat6a | 10 Gbps | 100m | Yes | Data centers | Medium-High |
| Cat7 | 10 Gbps | 100m | Yes | Specialized | High |
| Cat8 | 25/40 Gbps | 30m | Yes | Data centers | Highest |
Recommendation:
- Home/Office: Cat6 (future-proof for 10 Gbps short runs)
- New construction: Cat6a (full 10 Gbps at 100m)
- Data center: Cat6a or fiber
Copper vs Fiber
| Feature | Copper (Ethernet) | Fiber Optic |
|---|---|---|
| Max Distance | 100m (328 ft) | 2km-80km+ |
| Speed | Up to 40 Gbps (Cat8) | Up to 400 Gbps+ |
| Interference | Susceptible (EMI, crosstalk) | Immune |
| Latency | Standard | Slightly lower |
| Weight | Heavier | Lighter |
| Flexibility | More flexible | Fragile |
| Installation | Easy (RJ45 connectors) | Requires fusion splicing |
| Cost (cable) | Lower | Higher |
| Cost (equipment) | Lower | Higher (SFP modules) |
| Security | Can be tapped | Difficult to tap |
| Power (PoE) | Yes | No |
| Use Case | Desktop connections | Building uplinks, long runs |
Use Copper: Within buildings, device connections, PoE required
Use Fiber: Between buildings, long distances (>100m), high-speed uplinks, EMI environments
Network Topologies
Physical Topologies
| Topology | Description | Advantages | Disadvantages | Modern Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Star | All devices connect to central hub/switch | Easy to add devices, isolated failures | Single point of failure (hub) | Standard for LANs |
| Bus | All devices on single cable | Simple, low cost | Collisions, limited length | Obsolete |
| Ring | Each device connects to two neighbors | Equal access, predictable | Single break disrupts all | Obsolete (except SONET) |
| Mesh | Every device connects to every other | Redundancy, reliability | Expensive, complex | Data centers, wireless mesh |
| Hybrid | Combination of topologies | Flexible, scalable | Complex design | Enterprise networks |
Recommendation: Star topology for access layer, mesh or partial mesh for core/distribution
Addressing
Static vs DHCP
| Feature | Static IP | DHCP |
|---|---|---|
| Configuration | Manual on each device | Automatic from server |
| Management | Difficult (must track) | Centralized |
| IP Conflicts | Possible if not tracked | Prevented |
| DNS/Gateway Changes | Update each device | Update once on server |
| Reliability | Always same IP | Can change (but unlikely) |
| Security | Slightly better | Good (with reservations) |
| Use Case | Servers, printers, infrastructure | Workstations, mobiles |
| Troubleshooting | Easier (predictable) | Requires checking DHCP |
| Documentation | Required | Optional (leases logged) |
Best Practice: Use DHCP reservations (static IP from DHCP) for best of both
Static IPs for: Network equipment (switches, routers, APs), servers, printers
DHCP for: Workstations, laptops, phones, guest devices
Public vs Private IP
| Feature | Public IP | Private IP |
|---|---|---|
| Routable | Internet-routable | Local network only |
| Unique | Globally unique | Reusable (many networks use same) |
| Assignment | ISP or IANA | Network administrator |
| Cost | Expensive (scarcity) | Free |
| NAT Required | No | Yes (for internet access) |
| Security | Exposed to internet | Protected behind NAT |
| Ranges | All except reserved | 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16 |
| Use Case | Internet-facing servers | Internal networks |
Recommendation: Use private IPs internally, NAT to public IP(s) for internet access
Related Topics
- Network Fundamentals - Core concepts
- Routing Protocols - Detailed routing information
- Wireless Networking - WiFi technologies
- Security - Network security
- Scenarios - Real-world implementations
These comparisons help guide technology selection decisions. Consider your specific requirements, budget, and expertise when choosing technologies.