# Okay, so here's the deal.



## Captain Howdy (Apr 15, 2009)

I have to compromise with my dad, and I need to know if this is possible:

Currently we have the Vonage WRTP54G. It's shitty, undeniably shitty since the beginning. It runs G still, which for a company like Vonage, is quite pathetic, and there is no current upgrade.

So I was thinking; is there a wireless router that has at least one phone jack, and at least 2 or 3 ethernet jacks?

If not: Is it possible to use a Wireless-N series router as the main hub, and connect the WRTP54G router (or the V-portal router) to it to use the phones jacks.

(In order: Modem > Wireless-N router > WRTP54G router/V-portal > all computers)

If the second option IS possible, would having two wireless routers conflict? Would it be possible to shut off the WRTP56G wireless, so the Wireless-N would not have interference?


----------



## ToeClaws (Apr 15, 2009)

Aye - possible to use two if you set them up correctly.  Most wireless routers (in fact, any that I've come across) allow you to disable/deactivate the wireless.  If yours doesn't, then you can always select a different channel for it to avoid conflicts, but disabling is the best bet.


----------



## net-cat (Apr 15, 2009)

Ah, VoIP. You're pretty much stuck with the equipment they give you, unless you know _exactly_ what you're doing. (And I've yet to see a VoIP router that doesn't completely take over your connection.)

My recommendation would be this:

Modem -> Non-crappy router -> VoIP router and computers
That is, the VoIP router doesn't actually have any computers hooked to it, it's just another device on the non-crappy router.

Failing that, you're probably stuck with this:

Modem -> VoIP router -> Non-crappy router -> Computers.
Only thing this will improve is your wireless speeds.

Don't do this:

Modem -> Non-Crappy router -> VoIP router -> Computers.
If you do that, any benefit you would get from the non-crappy router would be negated by the fact that you're still running through the VoIP router. Plus, if this configuration works, the one I listed first will also work.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 15, 2009)

Take note that any non-crappy router you decide to use will need to have the necessary VoIP ports forwarded to the IP address of the crappy router, otherwise you won't be able to receive phone calls. =D


----------



## ToeClaws (Apr 15, 2009)

Another option, may be to put the first router in the chain to feed the second one in DMZ mode.  The only caveat is that QoS, if used by the VoIP provider, may not be honoured via the replacement primary router.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 15, 2009)

Awesome, thanks a lot guys for the good idea's, and things not to do (God knows, I'd fuck it up somehow).


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 19, 2009)

Okay, so, I'm back again with interesting news.

Ends up that my crappy current linksys router is actually /better/ then the Wireless-N routers I was looking at when it comes to range and speed (according to the reviews on Amazon >>>). I looked over the Amazon reviews, and for the most part, there were as many 5 star reviews as there were 1 star reviews, or at least within a 10 star gap or more 1 star reviews. So I think I'll pass on the new Linksys routers, and so now I'm thinking D-Link. It has nearly 350 5 star reviews, and 66 1 star reviews. 

The D-Link DIR-655 Xtreme...name length. 

I haven't wandered outside the Linksys brand when it comes to routers, so I still hope to get that same set up that net-cat had pointed out above me.

Any thoughts or opinions by the more experienced before I drop the money down on this?

http://www.amazon.com/D-Link-DIR-65...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1240126627&sr=8-1


----------



## ZentratheFox (Apr 19, 2009)

^ I've always been told by everyone I know to stay away from D-Link. That said, I have a number of huge D-Link antannae in use around different areas, no issues. Also, my DI-624 router has been on for... 5 years straight? Not even so much as a hiccup.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 19, 2009)

The DI-624 was a pretty bad router. That's from the series that people tell you to stay away from - Then again, every now and then, you get one built like a tank. The newer, re-imagined D-Link series, on the other hand, seem to have an extremely good track record.


----------



## ZentratheFox (Apr 20, 2009)

Runefox said:


> The DI-624 was a pretty bad router. That's from the series that people tell you to stay away from - Then again, every now and then, you get one built like a tank.



Yup. I love that. ;P


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 20, 2009)

So is that a negatory on the D-link DIR-655?


----------



## ZentratheFox (Apr 21, 2009)

Runefox said:


> The newer, re-imagined D-Link series, on the other hand, seem to have an extremely good track record.



That would be a "go for it".


----------



## ToeClaws (Apr 21, 2009)

Runefox said:


> The DI-624 was a pretty bad router. That's from the series that people tell you to stay away from - Then again, every now and then, you get one built like a tank. The newer, re-imagined D-Link series, on the other hand, seem to have an extremely good track record.



Yeah, this definitely seems to be true.  I have the 624, and it can be buggy at times.  My folks have one as well and it's rock solid. *shrugs*  Luck of the draw it seems.  Haven't tried any of their newer stuff yet - about time though to shopping for a replacement for my current one though.


----------



## Zero_Point (Apr 23, 2009)

I'd stay away from D-Link seeing as it's a gamble. I bought one recently and the thing was a piece of shit. Sent it back and got a Linksys and it's working like a champ.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 23, 2009)

Huff...It's kinda like, on all sides, I'm guaranteed a 50/50 shot of getting a really shitty router, regardless of how much money I spend. 

I might just go with Linksys, it's cheaper at least :/


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 23, 2009)

Hope _this_ helps a little.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 23, 2009)

Question! What will you be using your router for? If you are not using networking systems then all the extra beef a wireless N router can give you may be lost on crappy internet connection.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 23, 2009)

Right now I have broadband, and I use it for console gaming, computer gaming, streaming movies and tv shows, and a lot of lengthy youtube videos. Most of which is tedious, or slow, because of my housing arrangement (and where my dad decided the "best" place to put the router - on the other side of the house where nobody uses wireless), and N supposedly provides greater range, with faster download rate - Hopefully with a remotely consistent signal. :/


----------



## Aurali (Apr 24, 2009)

Yes, however if you were to get passed (giving an average) 4 megs a second (wireless-g is still beyond this) you won't be able to go any faster on a line.. We don't have the gigabit lines korea have yet


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 24, 2009)

Well right now, I'm on bare minimum G, with a crappy router. I figger anything would be a large improvement, and I don't even get like 1mb/s. My downloads are always less then ~150kb/s, and most often between 60kb/s and 95kb/s.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 24, 2009)

Okay, If you think it would help make a diff. then go for it.. but MAKE SURE you have a wireless N card in your computer first.. >.> Or just get a G.. If there is still a price diff anyway


----------



## ZentratheFox (Apr 24, 2009)

Get a Linksys WRT54GL and load DD-WRT on it. Wins.


----------

