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)
Re:This is great but... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This is great but... (Score:2)
Wimax is LICENSED, Wifi is NOT licensed (Score:5, Insightful)
WiMAX runs over unlicensed freqs too (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wimax is LICENSED, Wifi is NOT licensed (Score:5, Insightful)
(Yes, I'm going for an even split between funny and troll).
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'v
Re:Wimax is LICENSED, Wifi is NOT licensed (Score:3, Insightful)
corporations have no power that isn't given to them by choices consumers make
Just a for instance [wikipedia.org]Re:Wimax is LICENSED, Wifi is NOT licensed (Score:4, Funny)
Here in Scandinavia we tend to trust governmental institutions more than private ones, simply because any sort of scandal (bribery, abuse, etc.) not only has economical, but also political consequences. Hence, if an employee in the public system (which is rather large, compared the yours) is found guilty of some sort of abuse of his position, his whole department will be thoroughly investigated and there will probably be made some new rules (maybe even laws) in order to prevent it from happening again.
If a corporation misuses its position it can be fined, and some people might get thrown to jail. That doesn't prevent the next corporation in the line to do the same thing though.
Conclusion: Democratic (public) institutions/companies has a hgher incentive towards fighting corruption that private (non-democratic) have. Unless you of course think that the US public institutions aren't democratic...
Re:This is great but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is great but... (Score:2)
Agreed! And also... (Score:3, Insightful)
Paul B.
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:This is great but... (Score:3, Informative)
However, I think the initial assumption, that a mesh network is necessarily broadcast, is simple incorrect. One can use broadcast packets to collect routing information and then implement a point-point network. Well as point to point as one can get using wireless networks, i.e., your packet needs only be replicated by one host amoung you
Making hardware do what people expect it to do (Score:5, Informative)
The performance will always be less than an "every AP has its own landline" topology, but networks will be much easier to build (and perhaps simpler to maintain).
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.
Re:This is great but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention, security. This opens up a wide-open area for Bad People to do Bad Things with much more ease.
Re:This is great but... (Score:2, Insightful)
s? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:s? (Score:5, Funny)
However, we will chide you for not including 802.11n on your list!
Re:s? (Score:2)
Goofy letters (Score:4, Informative)
Check out the whole article to find out more about the various 802.11x standards (excluding the new 's' one).
Re:s? (Score:2, Funny)
of course in Soviet Russia... you explain to the government... I know, but somebody had to say it...
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:s? (Score:3, Funny)
I ran across something [google.com] once.
Re:s? (Score:5, Informative)
"Task groups within the 802.11 WG enhance portions of the 802.11 standard. A particular letter corresponding to each standard/revision, such as 802.11a, 802.11b, and so on, represents the different task groups. For example, Task Group B (i.e., 802.11b) was responsible for upgrading the initial 802.11 standard to include higher data rate operation using DSSS in the 2.4GHz band."
From 802.11 Alphabet Soup [wi-fiplanet.com].
Re:s? (Score:5, Informative)
More info (with explanations) here [wi-fiplanet.com]
Re:s? (Score:5, Funny)
802.11b = bad. It works but there's better to come
802.11g = good. Now it's worth using
802.11s = shit. That's what users on the fringe of the network will be screaming when the "link" node between the access point and them finishes their lunch and leaves, cutting them off too
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.
S, as in "SATAN" (Score:3, Funny)
Signed,
The MPAA/RIAA.
B.A.G.(G).I.N.S.! (Score:2, Funny)
My preeciousss.
Re: s? (Score:2)
Re:s? (Score:2)
Can do with existing protocols (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can do with existing protocols (Score:2, Funny)
We can make a faster computers or wire together a dozen old computers and get the same speed.
Re:Can do with existing protocols (Score:2)
Re:Can do with existing protocols (Score:2)
Re:Can do with existing protocols (Score:2)
Re:Can do with existing protocols (Score:2)
You can get around this by having multiple antennas/radios, but that gets expensive.
Re:Can do with existing protocols (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with the rosy view is that most real study has been done in simulation. There are not a lot of papers detailing real, large scale testbeds (with a literal handful of exceptions).
And the airport is nice, but I wouldn't want to participate as a mobile node with that card without an e
Too bad cities won't be able to do it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Too bad cities won't be able to do it. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Too bad cities won't be able to do it. (Score:2)
Re:Too bad cities won't be able to do it. (Score:2)
If you could get enough people to stick these things in their upstairs windows you might not even need the city to provide municipal access. It would be a lot harder to pass a law to ban something like that too.
Re:Too bad cities won't be able to do it. (Score:2)
Re:Too bad cities won't be able to do it. (Score:2)
Re:Too bad cities won't be able to do it. (Score:2)
Sure, it's not the most stable line, but 1.5mbps doesn't cut it anymore...
Nifty . . Highway net! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nifty . . Highway net! (Score:2)
The local digipeter picks up the APRS packet and forwards it to another digipeter or an internet-connected station, at which point the packet information is visible on several web sites.
Creating a mesh of access points for 802.11b is not a trivial task, but proper coordination within
Re:Nifty . . Highway net! (Score:2)
Now, Bruninga gets a little overboard at times talking about how bad the current APRS system is, but he does live in one of the high use areas. The interesting thing about his proposal outlined in the link is that he recomends setting up a high speed backbone system to relieve the stress on the current mesh network. I think it could be a very useful thing fo
Re:Nifty . . Highway net! (Score:2)
There is actually a project in a major automaker to do a Wi-Fi sort of thing just like this. Not only can the cars exchange information regarding traffic patterns and other "social alerts", but the car would also be able to do a complete diagnostic dump upon driving into your mechanic's garage bay.
Re:Nifty . . Highway net! (Score:2, Funny)
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 techn
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?
Re:A clarification and question (Score:4, Informative)
As for the details of what has been discussed so far in the 11s task group, anyone can sign up for an account at 802wirelessworld [802wirelessworld.com], and obtain access to all the documents submitted for consideration to the task group so far. (Once you register and login, a link for Documents shows up under 802.11 WLAN WG on the left of the page.)
Various usage scenarios have been considered, from the scale of the home ( a few devices) to larger scale community meshes. The standard will work on any "mesh-aware" point, which may be an AP or a client device. It will likely run at layer 2 (below the IP layer) and provide a standards based mechanism for multi-hop access to a wired gateway (or "mesh portal" as they refer to it).
Re:A clarification and question (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, that's basically the idea behind the 802.11s Task Group-- but the phrase "self-configuring version of WDS" really doesn't quite go far enough in describing the concept. It's sort of like describing the Internet protocol as a "self-configuring version of frame-relay". Probably not helpful.
Wireless mesh networks are multi-hop in a way fundamentally more complicated than the simple access point and a bunch of associated stations. They'll have to run a routing protocol and forward from mesh node to mesh node in an efficient and secure way. They'll have to be robust in the face of individual node failure. They'll have to support stations roaming securely between nodes in the same mesh network. It's a whole lot more then just self-configuring WDS.
Folks shouldn't get too excited about this standard. There are a lot of obstacles to making large multi-hop 802.11 networks as efficient as similarly wired topologies. The 802.11s task group isn't chartered with fixing the problems in the MAC layer that keep multi-hop networks from scaling up to very large meshes.
What are the problems? The big one is that they have a profoundly negative effect on TCP fairness. Next up is that multicast is just horrible. Even on regular 802.11 infrastructure networks, it's just horrible. On mesh networks, don't be surprised if it's even worse.
How does this difffer to how DS networks? (Score:2, Interesting)
FreeMeshWeb? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could this jump-start the "freeweb" movement, particularly since the telcos are lobbying and pushing to kill the muni wireless attempts?
Let's get the entrepreneurs and the networking hippies on the same "frequency."
Re:FreeMeshWeb? (Score:2)
There aren't enough geeks per cubic block to do this communally. It would probably require public donations (or public tax dollars) as a non-profit neighborhood improvement activity.
Re:FreeMeshWeb? (Score:2)
And get people to contribute to the cause until it "hertz".
Sounds great but unreliable? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why it's a mesh (Score:3, Insightful)
That does mean you have to design things so there isn't a single point of failure...unless you want a single point of failure, of course.
The spec just addresses the nuts and bolts of devices talking to each other. It doesn't take the place of an intelligent designer.
Re:Sounds great but unreliable? (Score:2)
Re:Sounds great but unreliable? (Score:4, Informative)
(Assuming they did it right...)
If the connecting node that dies was the ONLY PATH LEFT between you and the guy you want to talk to, yes it splits.
If there is another path available you reroute.
Just like when an earthquake or flood takes out highways and bridges.
Just like the internet used to be - and to a large extent still is in the core.
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.
Watch the RF noise floor grow (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Sweet... Now my brain cells will fry all day long (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sweet... Now my brain cells will fry all day lo (Score:2, Offtopic)
Why is it then if I place a porcelain/ stoneware plate in my microwave that it gets extremely hot after a few minutes "cooking"?
Surely there's no residual "water" in my cookware.
Re:Sweet... Now my brain cells will fry all day lo (Score:2)
Water interferes much more significantly with microwave radio transmissions at above 10 ghz.
Now my brain cells will fry... Too late maybe! (Score:2)
Radio waves around our brains... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Radio waves around our brains... (Score:2)
Re:Radio waves around our brains... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Radio waves around our brains... (Score:2)
see this site [cancerhelp.org.uk] for a good summary.
So, the main effect of radio waves is heating, and at 30mW per device spread out over a room, it's pretty weak.
Before you get too paranoid, radio and microwaves have less energy than
microporn waves... (Score:2)
1. Calculate the energy density from all of these sources.
2. Compare to sunlight energy density at > 1KW/M^2
3. Factor in sunlight containing an ionizing radation componant.
4. Factor in pr0n health benifits. here [newscientist.com] and here [google.com]
So yes it is safer to sit at home with the microwaves and pr0n that to go outside.
The amount of energy (Score:2)
There is a lot of info available on the subject [arpansa.gov.au].
WiFi lower level protocol vs. IP (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of these projects try to build their mesh networks on the IP level, i.e. hardware and, IMHO even more important, medium independent.
This standard seems to work below the IP level, i.e. invisible for normal routing hardware and only usable with those "s" devices.
I wonder if this is really a good idea. Making such a standard prevents altering and improving the routing algorithms (because in the best case, they reside on some FPGA) or using mesh network topologies with, lets say, a mixed WiFi, free space optical (think house to house laser pointers
OTOH, maybe the network will be more stable, but one has to prove that.
Re:WiFi lower level protocol vs. IP (Score:3, Insightful)
Ultamite Cool (Score:2)
Re:Ultamite Cool (Score:2)
Whither the Internet? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Whither the Internet? (Score:2)
Re:Whither the Internet? (Score:3, Informative)
The other problem would be the number of hops required for long distance. If 1,000 hops are needed to go from NY to CA, what would the latency be?
Re:Whither the Internet? (Score:2)
VOIP... will w<schreck> really... Latency... not... concern <squalchuckaboom> us...
Re:Whither the Internet? (Score:2)
Giving competition to the Big Boys is imperative (Score:2)
Once there broadband competition is there, it will drive down dsl and cable and phone prices.
So, it doesn't have to replace what we already have--all we need from it is to break the chokehold the big telcos and cable companies have on broadband.
Re:Whither the Internet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this work for really large networks? (Score:2)
I suspect not, with thousands of participants, routing may become unmanagable. Also, in the best case bandwidth is only going to increase by the number of distinct paths between endpoints (a chain is only as strong as its weakest link). But, I suspect once an optimum path is chosen, all traffic will follow that path, and adding more nodes won't improve
And it will... (Score:2)
I'm holding out for (Score:3, Funny)
Just think about the synergies and win-win go to market opportunities that can be obtained by utilizing it.
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:2)
Unless all the fibre in the ground is a sunk cost, so to speak.
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.
Old idea, but it's about time (Score:3, Informative)
Capsule summary--the privately-owned WLAN infrastructure should bypass and where possible replace the wired corporate-owned network infrastructure. There are three main facilitating aspects:
Internet (Score:2)
Or give them tasks DESPITE having diffrent IP's on my usb wifi device, and 2 nics!
What's up with that?
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?
This is premature (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, no one has given a MAC protocol that solves the hidden/exposed sender/receiver problems simultaneously. Without such a MAC protocol, it is impossible to resolve the contention fairly. 802.11 DCF solves hidden and exposed sender, but not receiver.
Also, Gupta and Kumar [bell-labs.com] showed that the per-node bandwidth in a wireless mesh with random node placement is O(1/sqrt(n)). This is especially bad news for the sort of nationwide wireless meshes people have been talking about here.
Finally, TCP is especially problematic [ieee-infocom.org] over multiple wireless hops. It causes self-interference which creates massive packet loss due to contention. TCP is built on the assumption that all packet loss is from congestion, but this assumption is not met by wireless contention losses.
In my own simulations, TCP's overaggression causes routing packet losses, creating spurious route breakage and even more TCP timeouts.
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:Ad-hoc anyone? (Score:2)