Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

802.11n Draft 2.0 Approved by Working Group

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the stamp-of-approval dept.

Wireless Networking 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.'"

cancel ×

105 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wires are still better.. Wifi is gimmicky crap (-1, Troll)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352895)

n/t

*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18352973)

If you don't want to use wireless then don't

Personally I like the fact I don't have to rip out my house to lay cat5, or have it streaming across floors so my brother in his room can access the internet and my xbox in the living room can get net access too.

Cabling industry troll, perhaps? (1)

Radon360 (951529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353345)

So which CAT-n cable company do you hold stock in? Or are you just hedging Copper Futures?

(teasing)

Re:Wires are still better.. Wifi is gimmicky crap (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353379)

*woosh*

Another sarcasm bullet narrowly misses a modder's noggin, and a post that made me laugh out loud gets modded Troll.

Actually... (3, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353721)

Actually, I tend to agree. I can't imagine ever using wireless for anything more important than say, reading Slashdot or Perez Hilton. Slow, insecure by definition, and inconsistent. I'll take wires over wireless any day.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18356149)

Actually, I tend to agree. You are a mouth-breathing fucktard, DogShit!

Re:Actually... (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18357005)

Slow, insecure by definition, and inconsistent

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?

802.11n -- what's the point? (-1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352941)

I think for most people using WiFi for Web surfing, G is plenty good enough. Most uplink speeds aren't anything close to what G offers anyway, and most people would be hard-pressed to flood a 54Mbps WiFi connection with Web traffic.

Even for gamers, where the multiplayer gaming protocols are optimized for ordinary cablemodem connections (and even dialup still for some), you're still not going to flood that 54 Mbps connection.

Even most corporate users don't require more than G and if they do, there's plenty of places to patch in.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (5, Funny)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353203)

Even for gamers, where the multiplayer gaming protocols are optimized for ordinary cablemodem connections (and even dialup still for some), you're still not going to flood that 54 Mbps connection.
I disagree. I had a wireless hub hooked up to a cable modem so we did not have to run a cable though the house. The wireless connection did slow me down a bit. It would have been nice to have a faster connection so my ping could be on par with the other player. Those few extra milliseconds can and often do mean the difference between life and death. Because of my high ping rates I became discouraged when it came to playing games and instead turned to my studies and other activities. Now I have a great paying job and I am quite healthy and financially successful. I never meant for this to happen, I just wanted to play games and have fun and I was robbed of such a life by wireless... damn you wireless, damn you!

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

Radon360 (951529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353401)

Silly question: Did your connection slow because of other traffic on the AP, or was your bit error rate becoming too excessive?

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353475)

If those are my only two options, it was likely bit error rate. I was not on the edge, but I was not close either. Plus, there was a decent amount of interference. All this could have been avoided with n.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (3, Funny)

paeanblack (191171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353435)

Those few extra milliseconds can and often do mean the difference between life and death.

Perhaps you would be happier with hobby a little less lethal?

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353625)

Ping is almost entirely affected by the path your signal takes, not the throughput of the connection. If your ping goes through lots of routers, or otherwise takes the long way to get to its destination, you'll have long ping times, regardless of how fast your connection to those servers is. So, 802.11n is going to result in very little, if any, improvement to your ping times. By analogy, your voice travels the speed of sound, no matter how quickly you talk.

Try this: ping one of your game servers with your access point in 802.11g mode, then reconfigure it to 802.11b mode and ping the same server. There should be no significant difference.

The only sure way to reduce ping times is to find a shorter path to your servers. That probably means switching ISPs. For example, we had much faster ping times with our DSL provider than our cable provider. YMMV.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (5, Informative)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353641)

Wireless gaming is quite the little nightmare isnt it?

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:802.11n -- what's the point? (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354475)

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.

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 region of the radio spectrum near 2.4GHz.

In fact, you don't even need to know anything about wiring to install a network cable. All you need to know is how you're going to run the cable. The connectors have color codes on them (if you buy anything but the very cheapest) and you can just press the wires into the proper areas, matching their color codes, and snap the little crimp connectors on.

Wireless is indeed the answer in some situations - those situations are all ones in which you're moving around, or a remote site to which you cannot run a wire. For everything else, you owe it to yourself to run a wire. You can run 100Mbps for hundreds of meters...

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354749)

As someone who switched from Wireless to Gigabit, Yeah both do have their purposes.

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:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

gallwapa (909389) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355879)

You can run 100Mbps for hundreds of meters...

No sir, you can run 100Mbps for 90 meters, :-)

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361839)

I think you will find that it goes considerably further than that if you use cat5e or cat6, unless you are using some crap linksys nics etc.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

JunkmanUK (909293) | more than 7 years ago | (#18359393)

Has anyone explored/implemented ethernet over powerlines? As far as I can see it has all the security, Netgear are now producing some high speed adaptors, and you're using the existing wiring within the site...

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 (1)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18359531)

Has anyone explored/implemented ethernet over powerlines?

Like this [devolo.com] ?

I haven't used them for gaming, but for all other purposes, they seem fine...

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

squoozer (730327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18359811)

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:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

speculatrix (678524) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354899)

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:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 7 years ago | (#18356727)

nobody uses that frequency
I'm afraid 802.11n does just that...

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 7 years ago | (#18358459)

"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."

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 "proprietry" drivers rather than the native XP control tool for wireless and still I suffer some issues, none the less I'd love to hear more as you clearly know something I don't.

Thanks for the info.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (2, Interesting)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353241)

You're thinking mostly home. Think full-scale enterprise, like I have to. It takes very little to saturate the links, especially when you factor in how much of the operations are now handled over the network. It's not just a few e-mails; Outlook can consume significant bandwidth (as can any client that keeps at least a copy client-side), and many companies require all data to be kept on network shares. Throw in roaming profiles and group policy-based software installations (even using BITS), and you can eat up wireless bandwidth very quickly.

The ability to match wire speeds for numerous users is going to be a huge benefit to companies that want to deploy wireless for something other than convenience in the conference rooms. Even when using a proper channel layout, even using 802.11a, you still have bandwidth contention within a channel on a single AP, and it mars the experience for the general user. Splitting higher bandwidth will assist in alleviating these issues.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353253)

What if you want to stream HD video from your computer to a wireless set top box (like a next gen AppleTV)?

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353397)

It doesn't even have to be HD, it takes quite some time to transfer content from my Tivo to my computer.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (2, Insightful)

DeGem (904883) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353267)

not to rain on your case but there is more then just internet traffic on my home network. I stream content and move files around to where I need them.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 7 years ago | (#18358489)

Mod this fellow up!

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 (specifically to wireless) that I figure 802.11n with it's "300mbit" (iirc) speeds that I'll MAYBE get 10mbytes a second (same as 100mb ethernet)

We'll see in the long run, but to summarise, 54mbits is bullshit and sometimes, for those of us with multiple machines - it's nasty.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 7 years ago | (#18359657)

did the joke fly over my head ? hard to tell...
leaving no place for overhead, but mentioning it, mixing up bits & bytes in every sentence... nah, this gotta be a good troll ;)

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 7 years ago | (#18359739)

I made a mistake - I meant to say instead of 54/8 (whoops, not 10!) I generally find that a good average is /10

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 :(

Sorry, I didn't write that initial post too well, much haste.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 7 years ago | (#18359847)

i'd like to remind that you left out any overhead. depending on protocol, link quality, type of data transferred, it can get pretty high.
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:802.11n -- what's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353409)

Range is the key for me. Isn't it supposed to double or treble the distance it will work over, versus b/g?

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353499)

200 Mbps is already obsolete. 54 Mbps was reasonable when standard new installation wire networks were 100 Mbps. But now it is 1000 Mbps or more. 802.11n is less than 20% bandwidth of a new wired installation. What a worthless spec.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353989)

Damn straight! No one has any business buying or selling wireless equipment until it is the same speed as a wired network. Otherwise, a 100 ft ethernet cable would do you just fine.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

brian.gunderson (1012885) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355285)

I'm just trying to mentally picture LAX or ORD with several thousand people each hooked up via a 100ft ethernet cable...

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353519)

I agree. 640kb^H^H^H^H^H 54mbps ought to be enough for anyone.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (2, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353533)

I think for most people using WiFi for Web surfing, G is plenty good enough. Most uplink speeds aren't anything close to what G offers anyway, and most people would be hard-pressed to flood a 54Mbps WiFi connection with Web traffic.

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 I'm backing up data from my work laptop to my FreeBSD file server over wireless, I sometimes wish it was faster.

Once your wireless runs most of your lan, there are lots of reasons why more local bandwidth is a thing you may want. Some people might have more local traffic that internet traffic.

Cheers

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

SeattleGameboy (641456) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353639)

You are ignoring the data storage requirements for a typical home in a near future.

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 the house with wirings.

The 802.11 N is really going to make it easier to manage all the content in my house.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (4, Interesting)

volsung (378) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353867)

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:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

lothos (10657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354549)

(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.)

The macbooks and macbooks pros can do 802.11 a/b/g/pre-n (pre-n with the enabler patch)

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1)

bionicpill (970942) | more than 7 years ago | (#18356301)

Only the Core 2 Duo Systems have the pre-n cards. The first gen macbook pro's with just Core Duo don't get this unfortunately. Though if you're brave I've read you can upgrade fairly easily.

Re:802.11n -- what's the point? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18354617)

I have a Macbook Core 2 Duo with the 802.11N enabler and an Airport Extreme using the 5 GHz band. It works beautifully. Though now I'm curious if the Extreme will be final spec compliant...

Trains Drive Mostly on Rails (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18356695)

I think for most people using WiFi for Web surfing, G is plenty good enough.

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:Trains Drive Mostly on Rails (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18356987)

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.

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. (1)

Fyzzler (1058716) | more than 7 years ago | (#18358079)

Does draft 2.0 deal with 802.11n trashing any nearby b/g access point traffic? That to me is the biggest hurdle with 802.11n technology.

If my neighbor goes out and buys a new wireless "n" router, my old 802.11b router traffic will go to hell.

is it just me or... (1)

fattmatt (1042156) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352961)

is 802.11_ updated faster than it can be deployed? I'm still on "b" ... am I a loser?

Re:is it just me or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353165)

No, I had the same thought. I can't keep track of all this WiFi stuff. 802.11a, b, g, n, MIMO..what the hell? Most of my machines are still using 10/100BaseT wired cards. I only got a gigabit ethernet switch in the last six months, and I don't own a single WiFi card. The standards committee needs to slow down and think a little about how people are deploying WiFi and then perhaps think about skiping the next "incremental improvement" standard and go for larger jumps in technology.

Re:is it just me or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360407)

am I a loser?

You are reading /. and your id is fattmatt

Skeptical (2, Insightful)

turbinewind (667970) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352969)

Doesn't draft mean draft. I got stung years ago by the 10Base-TDraft/LattisNet Synoptics deal. I can wait a bit longer.

Re:Skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353147)

Doesn't draft mean draft.


No, draft means final. Where were you when web 2.0 was launched?

Real men... (1)

phekno (719662) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352971)

use wires.

Re:Real men... (1)

26199 (577806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353081)

For what?

No, wait, I don't want to know.

not good? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18352995)

Someone by us swapped their netgear router for a Belkin MIMO router, the signal strength I was getting dropped dramatically. Needless to say they changed back to the Netgear. (Both were unsecured as well :!)

PS: Does anyone know where I can find TECHNICAL data about the "red line" locking mechanism for a supermarket trolley. Thanks!

Re:not good? (1)

POTSandPANS (781918) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355975)

Someone near you, and unsecured.. did their decision to change the router have anything to do with you going in and f**king with the offending connection?


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:not good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18357061)

No, I haven't messed with their settings ;), although I am not sure if it is morally correct to change their SSID to SECURE_THIS_NETWORK to point out how vulnerable they are.

They may get pissed. ;)

Re:not good? (1)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 7 years ago | (#18359543)

I just change the SSID to Open.Net
Help make a worldwide grid of open networks ;)

Re:not good? (0, Flamebait)

ICA (237194) | more than 7 years ago | (#18356619)

Yes, I know where to get that data.

I believe I have it shoved up my ass, right next to other off-topic shit.

Re:not good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18356717)

Thank you!

LOL it is quite difficult to find how they do it, I take it you failed.

Draft vs. Final (0)

DCstewieG (824956) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352997)

Just curious, if certified Draft 2.0 devices are guaranteed compliant with the final standard, how is Draft 2.0 not final?

Re:Draft vs. Final (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353107)

A better question would be, if Draft 2.0 is guaranteed to be compliant with the final, what does that mean for the gear certified with earlier drafts? Is it not guaranteed as well?

Re:Draft vs. Final (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353237)

A better question would be, if Draft 2.0 is guaranteed to be compliant with the final, what does that mean for the gear certified with earlier drafts? Is it not guaranteed as well?

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:Draft vs. Final (1)

Bretai (2646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354483)

The 2.0 draft isn't really guaranteed either, if by that you mean that they will take financial responsibility if your particular hardware cannot be upgraded to 100% compliance. I read "guarantee" in a different news item as well, but I think it just means that they don't plan to accept any more changes that could possibly require a hardware change to support - as far as they know. Of course, your particular firmware might not be architected right, and although it could support the next round of minor changes, that doesn't mean your manufacturer will bother to update your firmware - hey, it should mostly work.

I don't see much difference between the 1.0 draft. We pretty much knew that that hardware would support final draft, since there was a partnership outside the IEEE process before it was submitted, but there was a lot of useless pondering by tech journalists trying to suggest otherwise and appear "in the know". In reality, the situation hasn't changed much since 1.0.

Nevertheless, I'm in no rush to buy it yet. Remember, if it doesn't have some sort of certification on it, that means it's working in the manufacturer's opinion. Good luck proving otherwise.

P.S. Almost nobody guaranteed upgradability of the 1.0 stuff. I don't know why. I suppose it was just too big a number on the liability sheet, regardless of how confident they were. I only saw ASUS make a guarantee, and that was for the last 3 months of 2006 - subsequently withdrawn. Pretty lame, huh?

Re:Draft vs. Final (1)

26199 (577806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353129)

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 (2)

Excelcia (906188) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353013)

ISO seems to be more efficient at ramrodding through standards we don't want (OOXML) rather than getting out the ones we are desperately waiting for. :p

Re:ISO efficiency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353219)

Im assuming OOXML means OpenOffice XML in which case the reason that is going through faster is because everyone but microsoft would have that one. In this case of wifi I imagine each hardware vendor wants its own stuff in their and not their competitors.

Re:ISO efficiency (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354841)

Im assuming OOXML means OpenOffice XML

OOXML usually means (Microsoft) Office Open XML. OpenOffice.org uses the Open Document Format (ODF).

Gee, makes you wonder... (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353943)

ISO seems to be more efficient at ramrodding through standards we don't want (OOXML) rather than getting out the ones we are desperately waiting for. :p

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 (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353029)

It will take a couple of months at least for certified equipment to appear. Having participated in a couple of the working group meetings, I can say that (unfortunately) one of the unsaid goals for any of the participating companies was to make sure that none of their competitor's proposals go through as is. The rationale being that the competitor would have a chip design almost ready to go with that technique and will be faster to hit the market and grab market share...

Re:About f***ing time (2, Informative)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353629)

It will take a couple of months at least for certified equipment to appear.

For Draft Certified equipment to appear? Isn't that kind of an oxymoron?

Re:About f***ing time (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354857)

This is another great example of capitalism gone too far... companies act solely with their own interest in mind. And I used to think being selfish was a bad thing...

Re:About f***ing time (2, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18358129)

It will take a couple of months at least for certified equipment to appear.

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 (2, Insightful)

cyberbob2351 (1075435) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353099)

I see that this released draft seems to focus on speed increases, and not enough at all on security. Why is it that the industry is focused on such unimportant aspects of the technology.

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:They need to prioritize (2, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353325)

The people who work on these separate things are two different groups of people probably. The ones you want working on crypto stuff are your theoretical comp sci people and mathematicians. The ones you want working on the next 802.11 standard are your electrical engineers. It's not like one group is really diverting resources from the other.

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 course, but the overall point remains.)

Re:They need to prioritize (4, Informative)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353429)

>MORE packets per second on these networks,

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:They need to prioritize (1)

FLEB (312391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355035)

limit the amount of tries per minute per mac.

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:They need to prioritize (2, Interesting)

soleblaze (628864) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355343)

Doesn't matter about limiting the tries per mac. A majority of tools designed to crack WPA are done via offline attacks. You sniff the 4 way auth handshake, and with that you can use an offline password cracker, such as cowpatty, against it. Cowpatty also supports hashes (rainbow table attack) and the church of wifi released hashes for 1000 of the most common ssids using a ~174k dictionary. (That's the major problem with using a hash attack, the SSID is used as salt with WPA). So in the end, it's just weak passwords that's the problem.

belkin? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353149)

Doesn't belkin have some 802.11 pre-N devices out there? Are owners of those devices doomed to a life of security via obscurity?

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:belkin? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353449)

I bought a belkin pre-n router and card on sale for 30 bucks. I knew going in that, essentialy, I was buying G gear, with a bit more range and speed if I happen to use the pre-N card.

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:belkin? (2, Funny)

TechnicalFool (719087) | more than 7 years ago | (#18358633)

I've got a Pre-N router/card combo, and It's not "basically G". The "Basically G" router I used to have, would be hard pushed to give me a signal at the bottom of the garden. It also had a major problem with DECT phones, and if anyone decided to use the microwave oven, I could kiss goodbye to any data transfer during cooking. Now I'm blackspot-free, there's a clear signal all the way to a friend's house three doors up across the street, through his house into the fields beyond, and my signal is about as likely to get jammed by a leaky oven or noisy telephone as a fly is to knock out a 40 ton truck.

Mmmm, I like N. Even the dodgy draft versions.

N already? (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353389)

We're more than halfway through the alphabet already. How long until we run out of letters, and have to designate our wireless standards by shapes, colors, or other designations?

"Guess what! My network is now running exclusively on 802.11blue-dodecahedron-with-lemon-scent-and-sandp apery-texture!"

Re:N already? (1)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353665)

We start using chinese characters then.

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:N already? (2, Informative)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353965)

well we could just change the 802.11 part to something else. No biggie. BTW h,i,j,k,l,m were all used at SOME point. Some more than others.

(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... (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354027)

The Universal Character Set [wikipedia.org] has, as of Unicode 5.0, some 98,000+ graphemes, so I think we'll be good for a little while.

Re:N already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18354217)

Re:N already? (2, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355135)

After z comes aa, ab, etc. 802.3 (Ethernet) is up to ay already.

Re:N already? (2, Funny)

Nermal6693 (622898) | more than 7 years ago | (#18358619)

We'll just have to start using LETTERv6 instead of v4. However, it'll take several years to catch on.

for the cheapskates (2)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353399)

Once official N gear starts hitting store shelves in full force, the G stuff is going to go "free after rebate" to clear the shelves.

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.

Re:for the cheapskates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353513)

This is NOT necessarily a good thing if you live in an urban area. The 2.4 GHz spectrum is intensely crowded already in many places. More devices will only clog up everything even worse.

What we need is a new larger chunk of spectrum, and ditch the narrow 2.4 GHz altogether. Maybe that TV spectrum that is coming open soon.....

802.11.n (2)

thanksforthecrabs (1037698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353413)

more important than increased speed is the touted additional distance....

guaranteed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18354225)

this is still draft 2.0

sure, its not too far from final...but its still not FINAL. thus there can be no guarantee
that kit would be 100% compatible.

So long as it's not industry-pushed WiMAX (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354243)

which was an attempt to force us to not be able to get "free" wireless, I'm all in favor of 200 GB/s.

But, an important question, will this interfere with my ability to listen to CIA broadcasts on my fillings?

Re:So long as it's not industry-pushed WiMAX (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355375)

Quit trolling; WiMAX can't magically make 802.11 stop working, nor can it convince all the 802.11 hardware vendors to stop making 802.11 hardware.

Re:So long as it's not industry-pushed WiMAX (0)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355713)

All the economic incentives are for the non-free alternative, however. So, having a much faster 802.11n depends much more on consumer demand for a freer implementation, such as, for example, the 802.11n, which one hopes would roll out with 802.11g/n dual-spec to deal with the larger quantity of 802.11b/g existing today.

I implemented the b/g protocol myself on my home router, although I encrypted it with the 64 bit key (not the 128 bit key). Most home routers in the surrounding three blocks (the street at the corner of my block is commercially-zoned) are unencrypted, and only about half of the are b/g, with quite a few b in the remainder, and only a few that have switched over to the g protocol alone.

Thus, if we get a phased rollout of g/n hybrids, one could safely install a b/g card in one's laptop and have a very high probability of being able to find an unencrypted wireless source still, until eventually the remaining b standard laptops were encouraged to upgrade their wireless cards - or, if built in, replace their laptops.

Naturally, one expects commercial providers would want to provide all three levels initially, but would probably have a surcharge or higher rate for the n implementation, to pay for both the necessary physical infrastructure upgrades and the higher usage demand for thruput on the n protocol customers.

But with many medium to large cities providing free or base-free (first x hours per month free or via taxes on utilities) wireless service, we may see a slower adoption of the n standard on a free wireless municipal provider level - or with reduced coverage areas - e.g. restricted to downtown and commercial areas on first rollout.

It's all about the Jacksons and Franklins in the end. And industry would love to get us to pony out for WiMAX and kill off the less expensive b/g/n protocols if they could.

That's great, but what I want to know is... (2, Interesting)

negated (981743) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354895)

...will it include priority packet support for Duke Nukem Forever?

Re:That's great, but what I want to know is... (1)

aXis100 (690904) | more than 7 years ago | (#18356557)

Hehe, that's comedy gold!

Upgrade my old laptop with MiniPCI (1)

qube99 (652571) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355233)

When I can upgrade my old Dell D600 that still has a MiniPCI card (not PCIe) to 801.11n I will be happy. I'm not about to stick a PCMCIA card in this thing.

How does Apple's implementaion compare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18356393)

So for all of those people who have Apple's pre-N implementation, how does this compare/contrast? Is Apple's implementation essentially on target or are we seeing a fork in the road? And once it does get finalized, are Mac users going to be able to use standard access points or only Apple access points that use a cludge for Apple's pre-N implementations? And finally, will this affect the patch that Apple is selling to enable 802.11n on all those Core 2 Duo's out there?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>