802.11n Draft 2.0 Approved by Working Group 105
[Geeks Are Sexy] writes "Yes folks, the 802.11 Working Group has finally approved Draft 2.0 of the 802.11n spec, bringing us a step closer to its final form. 'With the positive vote from the 802.11n Working Group, the Wi-Fi Alliance will now begin officially certifying equipment as being compliant with Draft 2.0. That's an important step, as official Draft 2.0-compliant gear is guaranteed to be fully compatible with the final 802.11n standard.'"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For what?
No, wait, I don't want to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There are some manufacturers who guaranteed compatibility through either firmware or actual HW changes in order to encourage people to purchase them, but no, it's not guaranteed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That was what I thought. I suppose logically they can make the requirements stricter while forcing backwards compatability with the draft. (i.e. you can no longer do X but you must communicate with other hardware that does X).
But then, what has logic got to do with it?
ISO efficiency (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OOXML usually means (Microsoft) Office Open XML. OpenOffice.org uses the Open Document Format (ODF).
Gee, makes you wonder... (Score:1)
I think their speed is clearly proportional to the amount of grease that's applied to the inner workings of the system....
About f***ing time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For Draft Certified equipment to appear? Isn't that kind of an oxymoron?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It might take a couple months for the packaging and documentation to be updated. If you can't wait, looking at each vendor's websites for firmware updates and attached notes should quickly tell you which currently available gear is going to be 100% compatible, and full-speed with (future) certified 802.11n gear.
They need to prioritize (Score:2, Insightful)
With this speed increase, we will see even MORE packets per second on these networks, which only makes cracking of WEP, WPA, and LEAP that much faster now that the cryptographic sample set increases.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There are ways to reasonably secure your network, so people who know and care will still be able to take advantage of n when it's finalized.
(This is over-simplified of c
Re:They need to prioritize (Score:5, Informative)
That makes no sense. WPA (using TKIP) changes keys every x packets, not x seconds. Usually under 10,000. WPA using AES/CCMP is even more difficult (if not impossible) to crack. WPA and WPA2 are just fine for wireless networks at 108mpbs. Hell, I'd be happy just to see people migrate away from WEP with this new release of products.
The real vulnerability is still weak passwords. Wireless devices could do more to enforce better passwords and limit the amount of tries per minute per mac.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine if someone were trying to crack a WiFi device, they'd probably set their system up to change MACs on a regular schedule as well. Then again, I'd probably be surprised, and it's a simple bit more protection.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
belkin? (Score:2)
Although i think that making wireless g implicitly (or giving the appearance of this) compatible with b was one of the greatest moves to allow for adoption of new tech. I know that the b/g compatibility is probably nearing speed and range limits (or ran right into them), but i'm also disappointed that you'll have to get combo compatibility with combo cards.
Re: (Score:1)
There's no reason a software upgrade shouldn't be able to take it to N, but I doubt I'll be offered one - why, when they can sell me a whole new kit?
But, 30 bucks for a G router and pcmcia card wasn't too shabby, so I'm not upset about it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
N already? (Score:5, Funny)
"Guess what! My network is now running exclusively on 802.11blue-dodecahedron-with-lemon-scent-and-sand
Re: (Score:1)
There are thousands of those after all.
What? You don't want to learn a logographic writing system just to refer to wireless standards? Tough luck. 1.3 billion people "can't" be wrong!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(Don't remember all of them myself I know i was an improved encryption scheme, j was japanesse support k was extra node hopping, etc.. all or most of which is going into n)
They'll just have to start using UTF-8... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
for the cheapskates (Score:3)
Then we will see people buying trunk-fulls of G access points, and distributing grids of the free access points all over their property, providing greater coverage and more (net) bandwidth for the cost of $0 + time.
802.11.n (Score:2)
So long as it's not industry-pushed WiMAX (Score:1)
But, an important question, will this interfere with my ability to listen to CIA broadcasts on my fillings?
Re: (Score:2)
That's great, but what I want to know is... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
N-compatible and N-capable (Score:1)
Does anyone see the irony here?
Re: (Score:1)
Kitty would agree with you. Wires are delicious.
Cabling industry troll, perhaps? (Score:1)
So which CAT-n cable company do you hold stock in? Or are you just hedging Copper Futures?
(teasing)
Re: (Score:2)
*woosh*
Another sarcasm bullet narrowly misses a modder's noggin, and a post that made me laugh out loud gets modded Troll.
Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It's only insecure if you don't secure it. (It *is* possible to do even if almost no one does.) WHy do you say it's inconsistent?
Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Silly question: Did your connection slow because of other traffic on the AP, or was your bit error rate becoming too excessive?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps you would be happier with hobby a little less lethal?
Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (Score:5, Informative)
Here are some things you can do. The goal is getting the ping to the wireless router to be 1ms (or less) consistantly. 2-4ms consistantly is okay but past that lots of problems creep in.
1. Some wireless managers do something stupid every 30 or 60 seconds that causes lost packets and delays. The MS XP SP2 manager is one of these. I use the linksys manager that came with my card now.
2. Find a free channel in you area. Or the one with the least amount of interference on one of the three non overlapping channels.
3. Set your router to be either G or B only (pick one). Doing both adds some time slicing silliness that hurts latency. You might want to try both and see which one works out best for you.
4. Get as close as possible to the router.
5. Get a better antenna/chipset. You need a stellar connection with no interference.
I finally got my desktop to ping the router at 1ms consistantly with no lost packets. Well, once in a great while. Its so much more effort than running an unslightly wire and the wireless still 'feels' slow on BF2. Other games that arent as network demanding may fare better. Now I just run a wire when I want to play just to be extra safe and leave wireless for when im not gaming.
Lastly, an n-connection may not be at all faster in terms of latency. You may still have time slicing problems, weird interference issues, extra CPU usage, etc. Its not really like ethernet at all. Depending on the manufacturer and what the air interface is like near you it could be worse (latency wise) than running an old B router with a decent antenna.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I just want to jump in here and say that running a wire is much, much easier than most people think it is. The only time it can really be a pain is when you live in an apartment... in which case you are likely to have neighbors polluting the re
Re: (Score:2)
We still have wireless for PDAs and other equipment which moves.
The house is wired up for gigabit network though for all the computers.
Having 0.09ms ping is certainly nice.
Re: (Score:1)
You can run 100Mbps for hundreds of meters...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd be interested to know if this is a worthy replacement for any wireless network within a home? Especially bearing in mind with the dense population in the UK's cities...
Ethernet over power lines (Score:2)
Like this [devolo.com]?
I haven't used them for gaming, but for all other purposes, they seem fine...
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, I ran cat5e round our whole house soon after moving in. Best improvement I made. It's not quite as easy as you make out though and if I did it again I'd think more about where I put the cable drops (the patch panel is in the loft). Wireless has also come down in price a lot since I wired up my place so maybe a couple of base stations would be a better solution.
Re: (Score:2)
2. Find a free channel in you area
just bite the bullet and buy 802.11a equipment, nobody uses that frequency so much less interference!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OMFG please provide more information on this AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
I've had nothing short of nightmares with XP SP2 wireless over the past 2 years, drop outs, random "shit" - it's just been incredibly intermittant and difficult to diagnose (and I've been doing hardware for years)
I did try the Intel and Ralink "pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
54mbits be damned! even if you do the "pessimistic" network calculator equation, trying to weigh in overhead (54/10, not 54/10) that's still 5.4mb a second.
Does ANYONE get 5.4mb/sec sustained?
Seriously, I get at best abuot 2.8mbytes a second on a really good day, sitting next to the router and I've tried 3 different models.
That's 28mbits a second (allowing for overhead) or 22.4mbits a second without.
Come the heck on!
It's based on this exact formula and general bullshit from the industry (
Re: (Score:2)
leaving no place for overhead, but mentioning it, mixing up bits & bytes in every sentence... nah, this gotta be a good troll
Re: (Score:2)
100mbit ethernet is extremely rarely 12mbit or 11 or 10.5 - it's about 10mbit
10mbit is generally 1mb a second instead of 1.2mbit
You get the idea, anyhow 54mbit as they "claim" you'd figure hell at WORST case 4mbytes a second.
I've never seen anything over 2.8 and that's with about 5 diff wireless cards 6 or 7 AP's I've worked with - it just doesn't do over 2.8mbit.
Talk about bullshit figures
Sor
Re: (Score:2)
i guess with wireless you have to account for somewhat higher latency and fluctuations in both signal strength and quality, so guesstimate the overhead on retransmitting even a bit more.
i haven't tested wireless speed and don't have access to any equipment right now, but it would be interesting to test different adapters, routers, protocols and use cases.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But, people don't only use their networks for web traffic.
I know quite a few people who have wireless media players integrated into their stereos. If you're streaming your A/V stuff over your network, or copying files about between your computers, bandwidth is *good*.
I know when
Re: (Score:2)
I have music, video, recorded TV programs, pictures, document, etc. that eat up a couple of terrabytes of data. Having them spread among 4 or 5 PC's and Laptop is not practical. I have a dedicated home file server with replication among several PC's for vital docs and pictures.
Trying to get all of that to work with reasonable speed with 54Mbs pipe is not realistic. And I don't want to tear up all the drywall to retro fit
Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be nice if the shift to 802.11n meant that we saw more built-in support for the 5 GHz band. 802.11a seems to have mostly died in the consumer market, while the 2.4 GHz band with its overlapping channels gets more and more congested with b/g devices. Unless you live in low density housing, you aren't going to get anywhere near 54 Mbps to your router, even if you wanted to.
Unfortunately, since 802.11n allows for 2.4 GHz and/or 5 GHz operation, there are some people who are pessimistic that we'll see many consumer grade devices that are dual band. (A quick check revealed that the Airport Extreme base station does both 2.4 and 5 GHz, which is nice, but I can't tell if the Macbooks with draft-n cards do both bands as well.)
Re: (Score:1)
The macbooks and macbooks pros can do 802.11 a/b/g/pre-n (pre-n with the enabler patch)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Trains Drive Mostly on Rails (Score:2)
What's that? Not many people are streaming video over g? Really? Oh, right, you can't.
I'm facetiously pointing out that because people aren't doing stuff that's technologically possible doesn't mean that they wouldn't want it if it were possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Crap, I blew that one. Once more, with feeling:
I'm facetiously pointing out that because people aren't doing stuff that's technologically impossible doesn't mean that they wouldn't want it if it were possible.
The question nobody has asked yet. (Score:1)
If my neighbor goes out and buys a new wireless "n" router, my old 802.11b router traffic will go to hell.
Re: (Score:1)
If so, good thinking! I see nothing wrong with making adjustments to someone's router if it's a cheap $10, 108Mbit super-router that occupies 2/3 of the available spectrum and renders the other 1/3 unusable..
Maybe that's just my opinion..
Re: (Score:2)
Help make a worldwide grid of open networks