Discussing wiring houses with CAT6 connections...
Discussing wiring houses with CAT6 connections...
I’m preparing to install Ethernet wiring soon, and while checking guides I’ve seen many people use multiple wires into a single wall plate, giving more than two ports per room. Is there value in that approach? Shouldn’t each room have its own dedicated connection? Another idea is to run one CAT6 cable from the router to the laundry closet near two bedrooms, then split it into two for each room. What’s your thought on this? For now, I’m thinking about future growth—avoiding extra runs through the attic.
Many users like to set up individual VLANs on their routers or switches and create separate networks for different areas of their home. For instance, they might run one cable into the living room that connects to the TV, which could only access a NAS via a specific VLAN, or it might connect solely to the internet through another segment. Similarly, there could be a dedicated line for phone services, such as VoIP, or a connection for a wireless router to provide Wi-Fi in that part of the house.
However, at the end of the day, all traffic must pass through the single cable linking my router to the switch that serves the bedrooms. The main constraint lies between the router and the switch, not between the switch and the rooms. That insight helped shape the second question, since I’m uncertain whether adding another Ethernet cable to a different switch would truly fix the issue. It seems like each router would handle about 1Gb/s, not 1Gb/s per port, but I’m not sure. In short, if you use a three-port router, you’d get a shared 1Gb/s rather than full 3Gb/s.
They did it this way because of the network constraints you set up.
But wouldn't this be an issue that everyone faces? I'm sorry, I'm still getting the hang of this. From what I understand, with a router that supports 1Gb/s, all devices connected to it share that same bandwidth, and there isn't really a better setup you can make. As far as I know, the typical arrangement is one modem linked to a single Gb router, then a switch, a patch panel, and finally connecting to wall plates in the rooms needing internet. Your description seems just as valid. In fact, technically I'm not sure what makes one method better than the other—it sounds like you're wondering why your explanation might differ from what you thought was meant.
The main idea is that in the upper image, all devices linked to the switch can exchange data at the full 1Gbps rate. In the lower image, every computer inside the room works together at the same speed, but when trying to reach computers in other areas, they’ll fight over the available bandwidth. This situation isn’t just a minor detail—it affects users who need simultaneous access to shared resources like a NAS or virtualization server, no matter their location.
Not always. Internal data moves only as far as the switch, so the router steps in just when you need internet access. Switches need more power if you connect just two devices nearby, making them unnecessary. Some setups include Ethernet in several spots for flexibility when moving gear. If one cable fails, you still have another working. As @WereCatf mentioned, congestion isn’t a guarantee your plan will fail—it usually works fine. You should consider how you’ll use the network; sometimes a 1 Gbps link is enough, but in busy areas people opt for higher speeds like 10 Gbps copper or fiber.
The switch determines the destination for data by using its routing information, even if it doesn't reach the router. You can follow the same approach they're discussing. Having extra cable should make it easier to set up. It's interesting to see how it functions at this stage.