Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware IT

Cisco Announces 802.11n Products After All 49

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the if-you-can't-beat-em-join-em dept.
Kurtz'sKompund writes to mention that by announcing new 802.11n-compliant products Cisco has reversed their previous claims that the 802.11n standard was not ready for business use. "The Aironet 1250 access point can be used on its own, or as a thin access point connecting to Cisco's wireless switches - an approach that appears to duck the architectural issues which have split other Wi-Fi players. The AP, due next month, is capable of a theoretical rate of 300 Mbit/s (actual throughput probably around 100 Mbit/s) compared with todays 802.11g access points, and will cost $1299."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cisco Announces 802.11n Products After All More

Cisco Announces 802.11n Products After All

Comments Filter:
  • It's only "ready for business use" if Cisco is doing it.

  • Can someone please explain the logic (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @05:06PM (#20486819)
    Of a, b, g, y, n? If they started with o at least they could have a joke in there.
    • funny except that b was around before a, which pretty much succumbed to g.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Of a, b, g, y, n? If they started with o at least they could have a joke in there.

      Actually A and B came out together. A was for a 54Mbps enhanced rate PHY on 5GHz, while B was to improve the old 802.11 wireless standard to support 11Mbps.

      Alas, we have 802.11g because c through f were used for other 802.11 things. See Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].

      And apparently, they decided to reserve "o"...

  • Pretty Hefty Price (Score:3, Interesting)

    by unPlugged-2.0 ( 947200 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @05:06PM (#20486831) Homepage
    Wow,

    That's a pretty hefty price for a small increase in speed and range. I am still skeptical as to how 802.11N will actually play out.

    The problem was that it took too long to come out and it has given a big foothold for other players such as WiMax etc to maybe get a hold of the market. The promise of 802.11n and other wireless networks is to eventually increase the range so that you can have coverage over a larger area for a mesh type network but I think that with the amount of time and cost issues involved that another technology would be better suited.

    As for home and small biz use 802G seems to be better but the speed is always nice. Not at that price though
    • I don't see too many people using Cisco enterprise network gear for their home network. You can always pick up a Linksys (which is part of Cisco) N router for closer to $100.
  • 802.11N'Da'House!

  • More than just 802.11n with the 1250 (Score:5, Informative)

    by York the Mysterious ( 556824 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @05:33PM (#20487169) Homepage
    There's a lot new in the 1250. A lot more than 802.11n. First off because it's 802.11n you're getting MIMO which is going to benefit your existing B and G users. You're also getting a gig uplink port, which you're going to need now. You also get modular wifi cards. That last one is the important part. My university just deployed about 100 access points, and to replace them now we have to go swap the entire units. It would be a lot simpler and cheaper to just swap the radios. Beyond just saving money not having to replace the entire unit you save no having to pay someone to take the time to swap the entire unit our including the mounting hardware and then reconfigure the unit. If Cisco follows through and uses the 1250 as a real platform similar to the catalyst line, then customers have a lot to gain.

    • Re:More than just 802.11n with the 1250 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @05:57PM (#20487483) Homepage Journal

      There's a lot new in the 1250. A lot more than 802.11n. First off because it's 802.11n you're getting MIMO which is going to benefit your existing B and G users.

      But seriously upset your neighbor's users.
      The reason I'm so against n-draft access points is because of how they don't peacefully co-exist. They're specifically designed to reduce interference -- for the 802.11n devices themselves. We're three neighbours here living wall-to-wall, each with our own 802.11b/g networks, on channels 1, 6 and 11. If any one of us switch to n, the other two will suffer. The one with the weaker signal and most problems already will suffer the most, due to n's genius approach of avoiding other strong signals.

      Play nice. Just say n-no!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fwr ( 69372 )
        802.11n is not designed for home use. While you can use them in the home, and companies do market them for that also, it is really designed for the business environment. Think hospitals with challenging RF environments. There are, or should be, no other AP's within range of any that the hospital deploys internally. With a high-rise building that multiple businesses have suites in you may have a problem, but then there's a problem NOW with b/g because most of these small businesses are idiots when it com

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by arth1 ( 260657 )

          Complain about the idiot end-users who think they need more than 11Mb wireless connections at home when their ISP can't even deliver that bandwidth on a consistent basis, if at all.

          No, I think I will complain about idiots like you instead, who can't visualise a simple concept like a wireless LAN. There's plenty of people who find a use for streaming video over WiFi on their LAN, e.g. to a laptop, or otherwise moving large amounts of data (like backups) where they can not stretch cables, be it due to buildi

      • The reason I'm so against n-draft access points is because of how they don't peacefully co-exist. They're specifically designed to reduce interference -- for the 802.11n devices themselves. We're three neighbours here living wall-to-wall, each with our own 802.11b/g networks, on channels 1, 6 and 11. If any one of us switch to n, the other two will suffer. The one with the weaker signal and most problems already will suffer the most, due to n's genius approach of avoiding other strong signals.

        I'm not sure if this is related, but 802.11n Draft 2.0 certification (supposedly implemented by the Aironet 1250) requires a "good neighbor protocol" that's supposed to prevent interference problems. From the Wi-Fi Alliance's Draft 2.0 FAQ (PDF file) [wi-fi.org]:

        • I heard 802.11n can cause interference problems with other Wi-Fi networks. Is this true?
          In some configurations, 802.11n products can interfere with other Wi-Fi networks when they are trying to achieve the best performance. However, all products that are W

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by arth1 ( 260657 )
          While the "Good Neighbor" protocol would be better than nothing, it's still degrading the service for neighbors who run 802.11g. The difference being that instead of jamming their signal, they will leech half of the available bandwidth and make frame bursting impossible.
    • Hmmmm...but how many companies really just upgrade the modules on existing Catalyst switch backplanes? Most of the companies I've worked for that use Catalyst switches usually just get a whole new backplane when it's time to ugprade? Why? Most of the time, the switches are leased and/or managed by an outside company. In many cases, it's easier for accounting purposes to just swap the whole unit out.
      • I'm sure there's many thousands of businesses out there that have upgraded their 4500/6500 series with new modules. Say you have a 6509 with a Supervisor 1A (insert any other supervisor here) and a bunch of 48 port 10/100 modules. You need a really high end switch now capable of a lot more in the way of packets per second routed between VLANs and you want 10/100/1000 and POE for capable clients. What are you to do? Throw away your 6509? All you're going to do is buy another 6509, but this time it'll ha
        • I agree with you, but try explaining that to the bean counters at the places I've worked. They believe that somehow they are "saving money".

  • So ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrHanky ( 141717 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @05:37PM (#20487199) Homepage Journal
    If it has a "theoretical rate of 300 Mbit/s ... compared with todays 802.11g access points", what theoretical rate does it have compared with yesterdays 802.11b access points?
  • "Cisco has reversed their previous claims that the 802.11n standard was not ready for business use."

    If you use a wireless network in a serious buisness environment, you deserve what's going to happen.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Achromatic1978 ( 916097 )
      We use 802.11g in Enterprise. WPA2 only, enforced IPSEC. Radius, AD enforced client side certificates. AES. Smart cards.

      What's going to happen?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by nexex ( 256614 )
        Besides a client configuration nightmare?
        • Interestingly, besides drivers and a functioning (and correctly configured AD), I can connect with a vanilla Vista install... (Eww, shiver, I know)

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Vancorps ( 746090 )

          The beautiful part about the enterprise deployments is the ability to just plug in to the wired network. This will then automatically grab the policies and certificates needed to connect to the wifi network assuming the workstation/user combo are authorized. This is exceedingly easy to setup for small companies and can be done with only a single server and a managed switch. 802.1x authentication is transparent to the user if it is done right. Microsoft makes it mighty easy to do. FreeRADIUS and OpenLDAP on

      • Yeah, but it's the fscking Enterprise!!

        By the way, call me next time you pull up that Asian strippers program on the Holodeck. I hear it's _awesome_.
  • $1299.00. Boy, I just can't wait to get one -- or a pair -- for my home.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by yabos ( 719499 )
      Did you miss the BUSINESS part or something?
    • 2 you cheap skate :-)

      you depoly them in triplets (on chanels 1 6 and 11) to get max coverage Cisoc also do some nice controller switches to manage a whole unch of AP's

      These arn't realy consumer bits of kit.

  • It's a DRAFT standard ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bassman59 ( 519820 ) <{ten.ektal} {ta} {ydna}> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @05:59PM (#20487507) Homepage

    ...which means it's NOT a standard at all.

    And draft standards have large-type caveats on their first pages: DO NOT DESIGN PRODUCTS TO THIS DRAFT STANDARD.

    The implication, of course, is that the final released standard most likely will deviate from draft standards in some manner. Some deviances might be fixable via a simple firmware update. Other deviances may require ASIC respins ($$$$) or PCB spins due to form-factor changes.

    Yet the various network-products manufacturers got themselves into a bind: in order to make their products seem faster than the next guy, someone jumped the gun and released a product based on a draft standard. Of course, since that industry is made up of sheep, the others followed in short order, releasing products also based on a draft. And guess what? The stuff from Vendor A doesn't play well, if at all, with the stuff from Vendor B.

    There's a reason why various vendors' so-called 802.11N products have serious interoperability issues: there's no standard yet!

    This particular standard is quite complex (see the article [edn.com] in EDN magazine) and it seems like every vendor implements different features in their own way. Of course each vendor wants their particular features to be part of the standard, and that's one reason why the standard has been delayed. The industry can't stand the delay; after all, 802.11g products are dead since 802.11n became "imminent," and if they can't sell anything, they have problems. So they sell products that are not ready for prime time, promising firmware upgrades if/when the standard is actually ratified. It'll be interesting to see how that all shakes out.

    In that same issue of EDN, an editorial makes clear [edn.com] that basically consumers should just wait for the standard. Gimme gigabit Ethernet on a wire any day.

    • in order to make their products seem faster than the next guy, someone jumped the gun and released a product based on a draft standard. Of course, since that industry is made up of sheep, the others followed in short order

      Companies are hardly sheep for trying to seize a first-mover advantage.

      Also, the Wi-Fi alliance is testing and certifying interoperability of 802.11n Draft 2.0 equipment, so in some sense it is a standard, just not an IEEE one.

      • Companies are hardly sheep for trying to seize a first-mover advantage.

        However, I do think some of them are a-holes for selling gear (before Draft 2.0) that interferes with legacy 802.11b/g gear and will not be compatible with other manufacturers' 802.11n gear.

        Also, the Wi-Fi alliance is testing and certifying interoperability of 802.11n Draft 2.0 equipment, so in some sense it is a standard, just not an IEEE one.

        Also, Draft 2.0 gear is guaranteed to be fully compatible with the final 802.11n standard (with firmware updates). With Draft 2.0, the core technology is all but set in stone, but the ratification process is slooooowwww. Wi-Fi certification finally started last month (August), so I think it's now "safe" to buy 802.11n

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PCM2 ( 4486 )

      There's a reason why various vendors' so-called 802.11N products have serious interoperability issues: there's no standard yet!

      But they're all firmware upgradeable so surely these "serious issues" aren't that big of a deal?

  • Certified Draft N (Score:5, Informative)

    by eggboard ( 315140 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @06:01PM (#20487531) Homepage
    The comment on this linked article isn't on the mark. Cisco is specifically releasing a device that's got firmware based on Draft 2.0 from Task Group N, which has been certified as an interim release by the Wi-Fi Alliance. What all that means is that Cisco and other firms had to go through lab-based (not just plugfest-based) interoperability and conformance testing to get the Draft N Wi-Fi label. That's the baseline for the next year to 18 months for what 802.11n will look like. That's a far cry from Cisco just denigrating 802.11n's current state; they certainly didn't think it was ready several months ago (and it wasn't).

    • Cisco is specifically releasing a device that's got firmware based on Draft 2.0 from Task Group N, which has been certified as an interim release by the Wi-Fi Alliance. What all that means is that Cisco and other firms had to go through lab-based (not just plugfest-based) interoperability and conformance testing to get the Draft N Wi-Fi label. That's the baseline for the next year to 18 months for what 802.11n will look like.

      It also means that this device (like all Draft 2.0 gear) is guaranteed to work with the final 802.11n specification. The Wi-Fi Alliance finally started releasing Draft 2.0 "certificates" late last month, so now is the logical time for Cisco to release 802.11n gear. Cisco just waited until they could guarantee compatibility with the final standard. What's wrong with that?

      Ars Technica had an August 22 news story on the first wave of Draft 2.0 certified gear: 802.11n gets a boost with flood of Draft 2.0-ce [arstechnica.com]

  • ...or very few. I guess it depends on the value of n.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by MisterQ ( 60710 )
      regarding Cisco's "first" 802.11N product. Doesn't Cisco own Linksys?

      I have a Linksys 802.11N WRT300N Router. Isn't that -N? Mind you, there hasn't been a firmware release for draft 2.0 yet... (and I have asked Linksys support...)

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close