Introducing 802.11s - Wireless Mesh Networking 253
ikewillis writes "Intel has introduced a new wireless networking standard called 802.11s. This standard utilizes a mesh topology, allowing for fully self-configuring networks where each node can relay messages on behalf of others, thus increasing the range and available bandwidth with the number of nodes active within the system, versus the point-to-point structure of existing WiFi networks. This will radically transform WiFi hotspots, allowing the geographical area and available bandwidth on the network to scale with the number of participants."
This is great but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Can do with existing protocols (Score:5, Interesting)
Too bad cities won't be able to do it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Nifty . . Highway net! (Score:5, Interesting)
It SOUNDS good... (Score:2, Interesting)
What does intel get out of it, besides a new niche (for now - popularity comes later) to sell their hardware into? Last I checked intel wasn't exactly #1 in the AP market, which is where 802.11s will make the biggest splash. I just can't manage to trust intel.
Since it's a [proposed] IEEE standard it will be available to anyone for a nominal fee, yes?
Also, since when did intel invent the idea of a gateway between a mesh network and a non-mesh network? They exist already.
Finally, are there any technical details on intel's proposal anywhere? This article basically tells us nothing except that someone at intel drew up some cute flowcharts to take to the IEEE.
A clarification and question (Score:5, Interesting)
The article makes 802.11s sound like a general mesh standard, which would be really nice. However, what I read on the IEEE Web site recently made it sound like merely a self-configuring version of WDS (so that only access points participate in the mesh). Can anyone provide details on the features of Intel's proposal?
How does this difffer to how DS networks? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sounds great but unreliable? (Score:4, Interesting)
Watch the RF noise floor grow (Score:2, Interesting)
Radio waves around our brains... (Score:2, Interesting)
Whither the Internet? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Can do with existing protocols (Score:1, Interesting)
We were doing this in 1986 across west Michigan with MSU and Western Michigan University.
What is the next innovation they are going to come up with? ability to send text by using dit's and dah's?
Ok, let's not even look at it working like paket radio, look at it acting like 10/100 base switches. each node looks for other nodes that are open for relay and then let's the normal routing/switching that happens with TCP/IP take place.
Innovation lately has felt like Hollywood.
REmake after Remake... oh boy herbie the love bug, the longest mile, and the others....
Re:Radio waves around our brains... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wimax is LICENSED, Wifi is NOT licensed (Score:3, Interesting)
Fine, you can have your home-grown crappy WiFi network with a hundred hops to get to the next town. I can't believe this anti-corporate conspiracy bullshit gets modded up. Most of the products and services I buy are from large corporations. I've had a lot more problems with govt. power abuse than with corporations. The only way corporations can abuse their power is through the govt. anyway. Aside from using the govt., corporations have no power that isn't given to them by choices consumers make. I'll choose WiMax over the kludged WiFi solution any day.
Re:Watch the RF noise floor grow (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope that the 802.11s spec is clever enough to account for this fundamental issue - multiple on-chip radios would solve it - allowing users to be a part of several physically overlapping but channel separated cells.
Re:This is great but... (Score:4, Interesting)
As a trivial example, consider two networks, one with mesh one without
A net1 B mesh C net2 D
Bandwidth from A - D is the minimum(net1, mesh, net2).
versus:
A net1 B nothing C net2 D
bandwidth from A - D is 0.
As a slightly more complex example:
A--D
mesh1 \-mesh2-C-/
Is the bandwidth from A-D more or less with or without C?
Re:Lack of security? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a good question and, last I checked, an open research topic. One workaround is to only accept route advertisements from a trusted set of routers.
Re:s? (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right there, and this makes 802.11a a great thing to have. I'm running my home network on 802.11a, and here are the benefits I reap versus 802.11b/g:
1. When the hardware was available but on the way out, it was -very- cheap to pick up;
2. The range is much more limited than b/g, but big enough to cover my house and backyard, so I have less worry about "sharing" my connection with my neighbors than with b/g;
3. The 802.11a range is underutilized (my neighbors don't have 802.11a, and yours probably don't, either) and doesn't shut down by interference when you use the microwave;
4. Someone wardriving or just playing around with wireless sniffing tools from their bedroom are much less likely to be using 802.11a; in fact, until recently airsnort and related tools didn't even have 802.11a compatibility, and getting 802.11a working with Linux is a PITA compared to 802.11b/g.
So in a way, using 802.11a improves your odds of a secure and non-shared connection in the same way that using Opera improves your odds of picking up a javascript exploit from a web site. That's not security in and of itself, but coupled with VPN and the reduced range, it's very nice indeed.
Cute, but get a... (Score:1, Interesting)
real solution. [arraycomm.com]
Say Bye-Bye to Baby Bells (Score:3, Interesting)
The places that do have protective legislation will find themselves repealing it in the face of enormous public pressure.
The only purpose of the telco will be to provide fiber for institutional and corporate clients concerned with security and guaranteed bandwidth.
Good riddance.
SoupIsGood Food
Re:Say Bye-Bye to Baby Bells (Score:3, Interesting)
Who ever said that it couldnt be used against corporations that go agisnt the public good?
IML's could be the future. InterMunicapality Links.
Even better, you could base this system off of IPv6 and have Lat/Long coordinates for certain big hubs. Know the coords, know the IP, know where you're going through.
Slower! (Score:3, Interesting)
Will a wardriver in the parking lot be able to DDoS the mesh?
Will I have to disable mesh and disallow all outside traffic the first time I install the router, if I just want to use the router myself? Will I be able to do that?
Re:s? (Score:3, Interesting)
Your search - "why is it called 802.11b" - did not match any documents.
I think that's the first time Google every came up with nothing.
Re:Making hardware do what people expect it to do (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you talking about a repeater? I believe most of the cheap linksys APs can be set up to be repeaters instead.
Locustworld mesh networks (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Making hardware do what people expect it to do (Score:2, Interesting)
a mesh network will allow you to make a multihop wireless network much in the same way as if you had a number of wired network interfaces in your Cisco router. This makes things a lot easier, since the wireless network can be extended in an easy-to-configure way, without any wires. Also, the multihop routing capability increases the capacity of wireless networks. The repeaters actually decrease capacity...
Re:Wimax is LICENSED, Wifi is NOT licensed (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, sure it's home-grown, but that doesn't necessarily mean crappy. Say you have even half-concentration of WiFi enabled laptops per unit population. You end up with full 2.4GHz saturation and an entrie planet's worth of air bandwidth being utilized, with the hardwires providing shuttles to the rest of the world - and if the wires are still saturated, I'm still connected. Perhaps not via the guy sitting next to me; maybe it's the cute girl at the bar. Maybe its the business student doing spreadsheets on his laptop outside. One would hope it's through the proprietor's WAP on his cable line, or the OC3-connected signal coming from the college down the street.
Don't want to rely on the "crappy" home grown solution? Fine. Buy DSL or cable. I don't even care if you add public WiFi on your router - mine's open. Sure, I have to have software firewalls on all my computers, but that's just safety anyway.
Security will become an issue, but there will come a time when javascript-side md5-challenge-response becomes the standard for even the least significant of login screens (over ssh channels, preferably. I don't care if a site is "trusted" by verisign or not unless I'm using a credit card; I just care that the server's got a public key and that my data stays mine).
Meanwhile, I'm fine with my linux/mini-itx-based secure-tunneled proxy on the wired computer in my house. Hell, it only cost me $300 to build. Coulda been cheaper, but I got the 1.2GHz VIA board.
Point is, it's not a method of delivering Big Pipes to everyone who walks around with a PDA, it's about having an always-on connection wherever you go. And while it's definately not about security, the holes that arise from full wireless saturation are still a new and ripe horizon for the hack/fix cycle (yes, I know it's a money issue to Big Business, but for security-minded folks like you find here on slashdot, it's mostly a fun puzzle game).
As for the Big Business' powering the internet, I don't much give a damn how they feel about eventually becoming nigh obsolete (unless someone figures out a way to send a WiFi signal across an ocean, they'll be needed to maintain the hardwires and satellites). To be honest, they're - well - big. They can take care of themselves. Even when they look like they're curling up in pain like some sort of deeply wounded animal, they're thinking of ways to make or save money off the sympathy, rather than working on new technologies that they can then exploit for further profit at the benefit of citizens (the investment is often higher than the percieved benefit. Corporate entrepreneurs are so few and far between these days).
Meanwhile, with the proliferation of wireless networking and VoIP, how long do you think it will be untill the Bells start screaming bloody murder?
Oh wait, they already are.
Re:Sounds great but unreliable? (Score:4, Interesting)
But it's no different from anything else on today's Internet - there's single points of failure all over the place which can affect thousands of people at once.
Likewise, the power grid sure doesn't seem very grid-like when I'm waiting through a blackout.
*shrug*
The problems with range and penetration are not unique to 802.11, but exist with all unlicensed radio equipment, and are a function of a combination of physics and regulation.
Lower frequencies tend to penetrate solid materials better, but tend to suffer limited speed in practical use and are all gobbled up with commercial, public safety, and TV use. Higher frequencies tend to be more available, and are more easily absorbed and reflected by solid materials, but tend to have higher speeds in practical use.
In the US, there's very strict limits on spectrum usage and output power in the unlicensed ISM bands. Manufacturers don't make higher-powered equipment, because legally nobody (except for some amateur operators) would be able to use it.
That said, there's an obvious answer to the range and penetration thing. You just do the same thing you'd do if you wanted better TV reception: Buy a bigger antenna [hyperlinktech.com].
This isn't rocket science. Radio, at the level that you and I have to care about, hasn't changed a whole lot since the invention of the tuner.