High end consumer aka prosumer, which is only really one brand, ubiquiti. Specifically their unifi stuff.

Or used mid range business stuff, Cisco, Aruba, juniper. The pinch here is that you usually need specialized knowledge to configure this class of device. I've also used Cisco, watchguard, Fortinet, Sophos, sonicwall, and probably others for firewalls. I prefer Sonicwall for some very specific reasons about how they structure their configuration, but for anyone who isn't a certified sonicwall tech, I'd point at Sophos. Their stuff seems to be a fair balance of configurability and user friendliness. If you're instant on new business stuff and you have the money for it, Sophos for the firewall, Aruba instanton for switching and Wi-Fi.

The benefit to unifi is user friendliness and a unified control console. If you're not an IT professional or a similar technical job, unifi will provide plenty of what you need and leave out the unnecessary knobs that needs like me want to see.

Be prepared to spend several hundred on the networking if you're going to do it right, there are some places you can trim some costs, but before you nope it from sticker shock, consider how much you spend per year on Internet service, and then consider how much the router/firewall + switch + access points are in comparison... And those are things you don't need to buy every year.

Edit: I forgot to mention the backhaul. The decision will depend on the wireless environment. You might be able to save some cash having 5ghz backhaul, but it's going to struggle in dense environments, so consider spending some extra on 6ghz if you're in a medium to high density housing situation. Good luck

Thanks. I've been on hiatus for a bit. I'm around.

I still won't go back to that place either way

Is this a kink?

The first six hexadecimal digits of the Mac address are referred to as the oui, or organizationally unique identifier. They are supposed to all be registered, but with modern systems, mac address randomization is common, so the Mac address in use can be little better than nonsense.

I have a theory that some of the more budget oriented manufacturers (think Ali express), just don't bother using a registered mac address at all.

This all makes my job harder as a network admin, I usually need to look up what a device is by mac address to help identify what it is and what it's doing. I need to make sure everything is on the right network, and I can't do that if I don't know what anything is.

The last six hexadecimal digits of the Mac are simply to uniquely identify the interface that the Mac is burned into. This also means that any systems with multiple network ports, have different mac address on each port. Some things are exempt, like network switches, but for the most part, every interface has, or is supposed to have, a unique mac address.

Also, the mac isn't hex, it's binary. Hex is just how we've decided to present it to users. The switches, routers, and interfaces don't work with the hex, only the binary. Same for IP addresses, which normal are shown in "dotted decimal notation", but are just binary. But you didn't ask about IP.

Did you need me to whisper ouis into your ear and you can guess what company is registered to that oui?

Alternative? Sure. Though why?

If ethernet works, you're just using a more expensive option to go with fiber.

Unless you need something unique about fiber, like distance (which can still be dubious for consumer grade hardware), or a non-electrical based signal (dubious requirement in most cases), then you're just throwing money at being able to say you use fiber.

I feel like fiber only makes sense for long runs or extremely high bandwidth needs. For a typical home network, I don't see any benefits for fiber over ethernet.

Yes. Fiber is great but extremely nuanced. SMF, MMF, UPC, APC, OM3, OM4, OS2.... All different parts of just the cabling... Not to mention the connectors, LC, SC.... You get the idea.

Everyone I tend to talk to about it seem to think multi-mode is cheaper, and it can be, but in my experience, single mode is usually the better choice and usually not much of a price uplift if you're buying from a good company. Look at FS.com and do some comparison shopping against them. They make some high quality stuff, and it's at pretty incredible pricing for what you get, but the equipment can add up fast.

Multi mode can only really carry one connection per fiber and usually needs to be duplexed (two strands per link) while single mode can leverage WDM to carry multiple independent signals on different wavelengths. This can be leveraged for bi-directional single strand links, multiple links that are aggregated into a single connection in hardware (this is how 40Gbit works, it's actually 4x10G connections on different wavelengths)....

It's still more costly and requires more specialized equipment and training to work with, compared to copper Ethernet, so it's pretty uncommon to see in residential or home networks.

YMMV. Good luck.

An unmanned switch? Nothing concrete.

A managed switch can give you telemetry, like port utilisation, and you can observe how much upstream is in use.

My concern is that you have a 1g switch connecting 2.5g capable devices to a 2.5g capable upstream network. That's a bottleneck that I would want to eliminate. I know serve the home has a roundup of 2.5g switches that might be useful for you. I'm not saying you should switch to managed either, you may be well served by an unmanaged switch, and it will save you money. The telemetry for managed switches usually requires a system to collect and store it, usually an NMS, or network monitoring/management system.

Some manufacturers build NMS style telemetry into their products, ubiquiti does this to a limited extent. Other vendors may be better or have nothing at all. Something to think about when picking gear, if you like that sort of visibility. NMS usually operates over SNMP, which can become a whole thing; but for monitoring, setting up read only SNMP can be rather easy.

A word of caution. 10G and 2.5/5G were developed independently, and 10G came first. It was expensive which is why 2.5/5g Ethernet became a thing. Because of this checkered past, there's a lot of 10G equipment that will not support operating at 2.5 or 5gbps. So if you get a 10G switch, check if there's 2.5G, or 5G capability separately, or included on the 10G ports.

In my experience, most 10G ports are 1 or 10G, with nothing in between. Most 2.5G ports can't do 10G. So the best idea would be to have a switch with a couple of 10G for fast uplinks and some 2.5G connections for your devices. Unless you can find a unicorn of a switch that supports all speeds on all ports, a switch split between 2.5G and 10G ports is probably your best bet.

Good luck.

They mentioned MoCa. If you have cable (like for the tv) you can probably use MoCa. It's fantastic.

If I'm not mistaken, they still use 2.4 GHz, which is also used by wifi, Bluetooth, ZigBee, a bunch of other stuff.... Microwave ovens.....

And anything operating on a frequency, regardless of protocol, will interfere with eachother. I think the main benefit for you would be the brief amount of active time, could reduce the airtime being used by the devices.

I hope it works out for you and your wifi works excellently. Just be aware that it could still interfere. Use 5ghz when possible.

It's a single frequency for all people, including those that are on the same or adjacent/overlapping channels. If you ever used walkie talkies, they don't work so well when more than one person is talking.

Same idea.

Wi-Fi 7 is introducing multi link, which could improve the duplex operation, but it's far from perfect. Even if you use one channel for download and one for upload, you're still competing with everyone else on the channel - whether they're connected to your network or not. They can still interfere with you if you're on the same channel but different networks.