Talk:Residential gateway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as Mid-importance).

Early comments[edit]

This article was completely re-written. Previous discussion comments were extremely obsolete and have been removed. Bot comments in the previous discussion page referred to images that were not on the page.

Perspectoff (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)perspectoff

The problem I have with the rewrite is that it doesn't clarify that what most people call routers aren't really routers, but NAT gateways. The article on doesn't even consider modems to be gateways.

A residential gateway connects the home's local area network (LAN) to the Internet. A hardware device similar in appearance to a router, the residential gateway provides a unique combination of features of interest to many households. Learn more about this exciting new development in computer networking below.

I feel like the new page is more of "every device an ISP could give you" than "residential gateway"

Exobyte (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Linux OS?[edit]

What's with all the talk of the Linux OS here? It is unnecessary. If Linux is mentioned, so should the multitude of other operating systems (some of which are used more often for routers, such as FreebSD). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Useless Page[edit]

I don't agree with most of what this page talks about. Like it does mention at one point, the term "residential gateway" is really an older term used to describe less featured home devices. However, just because these devices lacked (or still lack) some of the features of "actual routers" does not mean they are not routers. If a device can route traffic from one network to another, like from a Home LAN to the Internet (WAN) then its a router. Does not matter if it lacks some of the features bigger name routers do. Another issue I have with this article is the term "gateway". A gateway is a device or program that converts one protocol to another. I do not believe any of these "residential gateway" routers provide these features (along with many of the other devices listed. Therefor, technically they are not even gateways. The router is a default gateway, but that is not the same thing. Basically, this article is about consumer networking appliances. I think the article really should be renamed to that and have another complete rewrite to actually give factual information. As far as I am concerned, this article is full of misleading information. Jwjkp (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this page needs major work - it is unreferenced and I also don't agree with the content. However, I think the title is OK. The term residential gateway has come to refer to a box typically combining an ethernet switch, router, and DSL modem that is intended for domestic applications. Sidefall (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

Residential gateway is relevant. This term is refered in technical manuals (as of 2012) for network cable installers. I'm sure that ISP tech support would know exactly what is meant by this term as well. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Classification of device[edit]

I have seen these referred to and perform the functions of a network bridge, router, firewall, hub, switch, and wireless access point. I think it is fair to describe how each of these functions may be rolled up into these devices. Lets not also forget DNS proxy, web content filter, anti-malware, IDS, and QOS. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Core Scope[edit]

The things that all Residential gateways have in common are:

  1. Serves as a logical demarcation point between the ISP and the customer,
  2. physically composed of a gateway device
  3. Device has a WAN port consisting of an Ethernet interface that supports Internet Protocol and has a gateway address that routes to the Internet.
  4. Device acts as a bridge to a Cable modem termination system or Digital subscriber line access multiplexer that connects the gateway node to the ISP Backbone network and to the Internet cloud,

Can we agree on this core commonality? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammar Edits[edit]

I did a bunch of grammar and spelling corrections to this article today. It was really a mess including mistakes like using "bear" (the animal) instead of "bare" (like exposed). Reads pretty cleanly now I think. Jwjkp (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts, but please read your dictionary a bit more Jwjkp! "Bear" has multiple meanings, including "carry" (as in to bear gifts) as well as a large hairy mammal. Thus a router bears (carries) traffic, it does not bare (expose) it. Also, imply ("to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated") better expresses the meaning than infer ("to derive by reasoning") in this case. Rhanbury (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)  Done

Info on early RG initiatives[edit]

I'm including links to two historical documents that give perspective of early visions and standards work, including one on IBM's RG Initiative. It is not meant to promote any company or product but instead gives insight into the challenges and how actual deployments differed from the original vision. (Waynecaswell (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Remove Manufacturers List[edit]

I propose removal of this embedded list, "Manufacturers". Per policy Wikipedia:NOT#STATS and Wikipedia:Notability, embedded lists are supposed to be relevant and supportive to the article. Placing a random list of network equipment manufacturers does not present any further understanding of the subject to the reader. It also makes the article unnecessarilly long. I don't care of it is merged or moved to a stand alone list. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)