802.11g Hardware Arrives

DBordello writes "There's been quite a scramble as networking companies the world over rush to be the first to bring their 802.11g wireless gear to market. Linksys missed their early December launch date, and a company named Buffalo Technology has risen to steal their thunder. The company today issued a press release announcing their AirStation G54 broadband router access point and wireless CardBus adapter, the first 802.11g draft standard hardware to hit the market. More information can be found at the company's website." Update: 12/31 21:35 GMT by M : The story submitter apparently found this blurb on broadbandreports.com. Hey people, give credit where it's due. Update: 12/31 22:50 GMT by T : Karen Sohl of Linksys writes to say that despite the slip in dates, "Linksys is shipping our line of Wireless-G products. We have been shipping since last week. Honestly not large volume by any means-- but by the end of this week we'll have shipped over 10,000 units to distribution -- Ingram Micro and Tech Data." That's where even large retailers (think Amazon) buy their stock.

Comments

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

More wirless technology that's bound to fail in my crappy house with its big thick walls!

Re:Great!

[Simon Field]

We have had great success in buildings with thick walls.

We use directional antennas such as these and these to get very high signal strengths and low noise.

We use this antenna to go between buildings. These also work great for long distances.

With two of those antennas, we have spanned 2400 feet (and we are planning a similar setup to span a distance of 5 miles).

Don't give up -- there are easy solutions to thick walls.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

You would prefer some nice paper-thin walls made of flakeboard like those found in all those new McMansion houses they are slapping together these days? I refer you to the case of The Three Little Pigs.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't give up -- there are easy solutions to thick walls.

What about thick heads?

Re:Great!

[aenea]

Walls, schmalls, you may have issues if it's in the same room and you have 802.11b clients. It looks like most of the bandwidth gains go away if you have an active 802.11b client in the area. BuffaloTech review

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that problem is still unsolved. After all, there's only room for one US president at one time.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even, what about my huge thick cock in your ass?

Re:Great!

[SpinyNorman]

Don't give up -- there are easy solutions to thick walls.

Yeah - ethernet cable running thru the conduit! ;-)

Re:Great!

[Surlyboi]

Dinsdale...

Re:Great!

[SpinyNorman]

Dinsdale...

Yep!

I'm waiting

[elliotj]

for 802.11xp!

Re:I'm waiting

[theinfobox]

Nah... 802.11xp is nothing.... Now, 802.11.NET is something to wait for! :->

Re:I'm waiting

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus fucking christ. Can you zealots have a discussion about anything without tying it to MS? You probably bitch about the while fucking your girlfriend, until she dumped you for someone with more diverse conversation skills.

http://www.linksys.com/splash/wap54g_splash.asp

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.linksys.com/splash/wap54g_splash.asp

Check the facts before you post.

Re:http://www.linksys.com/splash/wap54g_splash.asp

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, they like shipped the same day and stuff. nice accurate posting. =P

Re:http://www.linksys.com/splash/wap54g_splash.asp

[Anonymous Coward]

Who researched this story? Linksys released the same day, just no press release.

Re:http://www.linksys.com/splash/wap54g_splash.asp

[sweetooth]

The very bottom of any of the Linksys 802.11G pages say in large bold letters.

Available End of December:

You can also see that amazon.com has the Linksys 802.11G products listed with a status of "Not yet released"

Linksys at Amazon

Maybe you should check your facts Troll.

Re:http://www.linksys.com/splash/wap54g_splash.asp

[Anonymous Coward]

I work here :)

Its released, we are taking support calls on the product now.

Re:http://www.linksys.com/splash/wap54g_splash.asp

[Daleks]

The title of that page is "Wireless-G Access Point". So it's for when you want to reach out and touch som... I couldn't help myself. Sorry.

Re:http://www.linksys.com/splash/wap54g_splash.asp

[Craig Davison]

Linksys has some more fine-tuning to do before it works well enough to be a failure-prone piece of crap like the rest of their products.

PS: Haha. I just noticed that www.linksys-sucks.com redirects to www.netgear.com. Sound advice if you're considering buying Linksys.

Re:http://www.linksys.com/splash/wap54g_splash.asp

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess I'm a lucky exception... I have used several Linksys products for years and none of them has had the slightest problem. This includes 10 and 10/100 PCI Ethernet interfaces, hubs, and a cable modem router/hub. Plus several of my friends swear by their own gear of the same brand, especially their wireless access points. Is there a web site documenting what's so awful about Linksys?

4th Post!

[lasmith05]

I can't wait till we can travel ANYWHERE wirelessly and not have to pay... It could happen... ;P

Re:4th Post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. That'll happen the same century HanzoSan posts an intelligent comment!

Re:4th Post!

[cnmill]

Traveling wirelessly? you mean like "beaming" in Star Trek, or perhaps like Mike Teevee in the "Willy Wonka" story?

802.11g

[checkitout]

alpha, beta, and now gamma... when's the stable release finally going to be out?

Re:802.11g

[select * from]

I'm waiting for 802.12RC1 myself.

Re:802.11g

[3ryon]

alpha, beta, and now gamma... when's the stable release finally going to be out?

That would be 802.12. Odd number releases are never stable. Sheesh, how long have you been reading slashdot?

Re:802.11g

[SirCrashALot]

Well is it 802.xx not the old 801.xx or the buggy, ever postponsed, but full of nifty features 803.xx (or as some hope 8000.xx)

Re:802.11g

[kensai]

it's funny 'cause it's true

Re:802.11g

[gmacek]

Here's a bit from Buffalo's page on the new AP and PC Card: (at bottom of page) Here

NOTE TO OUR CUSTOMERS: As you may know, IEEE802.11g is slated to be certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance in mid 2003. We understand this could affect current 802.11g technology. We are dedicated to ensuring that our customers have the most current and reliable products available on the market today. If the certification materially changes the principal operating features of our pre-standard 802.11g products, we will replace or upgrade any of those products at no charge and provide toll-free technical support. We thank you for your loyalty and confidence in our products.

So in case anything changes they're guaranteeing you'll have what works. That's pretty cool if you ask me. I've worked with these guys before and have purchased a number of AP's and cards and they work well. People are nice to work with too.

Re:802.11g

[NuShrike]

So bets on how long before wireless spells b-a-g-i-n-s?

My precious!

Re:802.11g

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was 802.11b first. so b,a,g

buttse on rye?

[FigBugDeux]

lemon party vs techie scripts?

buttse! buttse! buttse!

Re:buttse on rye?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another example why not to drink that last little bit of eggnog you found in the back of the fridge.

On top of things...

[My_nickname_is_taken]

Does this mean my 4Mb token ring is obsolete?

Re:On top of things...

[Anonymous Coward]

We still use it.

Of course the last company I was at still used punch cards, so I tend to take jobs with antiquated tools.

Re:On top of things...

[Lxy]

Does this mean my 4Mb token ring is obsolete?

Your post was funny. I know that. I'm bored and I want to write a speech on why Token Ring is a bitch to upgrade.

Most token ring hubs are 4/16 selectable, but every card needs to be 16 or 4. If even one card is a different speed, your ring comes to a crash. 16Mb token ring hardware is expensive, as is 100Mbit token ring (yes, they make 100Mbit token ring, I have a small test ring set up with it).

Why not ethernet? Well, in a lot of cases, Token Ring installations were wired with a 4 conductor 14 gauge cable with really odd looking hermaphroditic connectors on them. To move to ethernet requires either an investment in recabling or the purchase of an impedence matching convertor, which I really don't recommend. They will bring your ethernet segment to a crash if you're not careful.

If you're running 4 MB token ring, you're probably fux0red unless you have a lot of money to burn.

Re:On top of things...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you an IBM employee by any chance? I've heard funny stories that our older offices seem to be the last places in the world still using Token Ring. It's a royal pain for those of us who work in Ethernet-wired (& wireless) sites, when we visit an office with Token Ring. Gives you a new appreciation for USB keychain flash storage, seeing how so few laptops have floppy drives these days. :-)

Re:On top of things...

[Lxy]

No, I don't work for IBM. I work for a boss who, in the 80s, used the "nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM" addage to wire the building with type 1 cabling.

Anything that was built in the day of token ring's dominance was probably wired with this cursed Type 1 cable, if there was a short-sighted manager behind it. Because of the reasons I've mentioned, most are still token ring because upgrading is a painful, expensive process.

Re:On top of things...

[bryanp]

My boss is still an IBM nut, but my company finally bit the bullet and we just finished recabling 300+ facilities that were on 16Mb token ring over Type 1 cable with those UDC connectors you were talking about to Cat5e and 100Mb Ethernet. Well, almost. I still have a few sites out there that are token ring but they aren't for long. Anybody want a few (hundred) Synoptics 2712 token ring concentrators?

(no, I can't really give them to you but they're just taking up space in my storeroom until someone decides what to do with the them)

Re:On top of things...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the useable bandwidth of that 100Mb Ethernet is about 18Mb I hope you didn't spend too much money.

Add rants about segments and compatibility below.

Re:On top of things...

[nolife]

Okay, I am bored too.

If you ever use United Airlines at one of their larger stations (IAD, ORD, DEN, SFO, LAX, BOS, LGA, JFK and many others) you are checking in at the counter and getting your seat assignment at the gate via 16Mb TR on a Win 3.1 machine with OS/2 servers and bridges that connect to mainframes via a modem sharing device or an embedded Linux Legacy to TCP/IP converter. WAY old but still ticking..

They have redundant conectivity to the mainframes. One is strickly TCP/IP over the network and the other is initially through the local network but exits out via the modem sharing devices through the OS/2 servers. Both can work simutaneously. When I left the pure Legacy was still much faster and more reliable.
The fastest systems were the the newer design that were not redundant but worked the best, they are only TCP/IP and were completely rid of all Legacy protocols and equipment. The "redundency" design for these was built into the existing network like 2 routers, 2 switches, 2 frame relays etc (of course probably attached at the same telephone poll that everyone hits right outside the airport).

Re:On top of things...

[indiigo]

What do you mean "burn?" It costs the same to lay 1000bt cat5e(or higher) cable now as cat5 100bt, and the difference in performnce is in multiples of 10-100, depending on your setup, from 4MB token ring. Well worth the cost investment. Better yet, if you've waited this long, it's actually cheaper to lay cable than just 4 years ago, and you can get really slick stuff (fiber backbones to simple switches) at a great distance for much less than the rest of us paid for it.

Re:On top of things...

[bizitch]

And how about my ARCnet infrastructure?

Re:On top of things...

[Yottabyte84]

Whose ass did you pull that number out of? I get 50Mbps of useable bandwidth out of my hub setup, and 100 with a switch.

Re:On top of things...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can use the exisiting cables that are laided for 4 MB token ring to run normal ethernet 100MB, just attach these things that convert from the IBM Alpha Connectors to CAT5, its much more effective than repulling cable.

security?

[trance9]

I'm a little worried about this mad dash to 802.11 technology before any viable security is in place. Of course this is great for those who want to create open networks--but many will use it to create corporate networks, or home networks with unsecured machines attached.

I'm running an 802.11 network and it drives me crazy that there is no way to wholly secure it: I have to secure each and every host on my network as it's impossible to create any kind of firewall (someone will just hack the air interface and get around my firewall).

Hopefully in addition to cool new bandwidth there are some hardcore security features in this one. 802.11 is "ad hoc" in more ways than one :-)

Re:security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Put your wireless network in a DMZ and replace WEP with IPSec. VPN into your wired net if you need access to it.

Are there any flaws in this strategy? This is what I plan to do before I launch my home wireless network.

Re:security?

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, most computers are so processor and memory-heavy that it's not that big of a deal to run a VPM-even MS's VPN should do for day-to-day stuff.
Just set up a dedicated VPN box between the wireless and the physical network, only allow authorized VPN connections into it, and only allow packets to flow through the VPN to/from the hosts.

Re:security?

[macemoneta]

Nope, you're right, that works just fine. You don't actually need the DMZ, and you can also use SSH tunnels if you want a more adhoc environment (that's what I'm doing now).

The problem is that most people just take the stuff out of the box and plug it in, leaving themselves open. This article describes the problem.

We can set this up easily enough, but for most people, if it isn't configured by the manufacturer, it will never happen. Even some of my more technically capable friends never upgrade firmware (or manage to destroy their equipment when they try).

Re:security?

[Stonent1]

256bit WEP not enough for you?

It takes about 15 minutes to crack 64bit wep. A day to crack 128bit wep. I think that 256bit WEP IIRC would in theory take about a month of non-stop monitoring.

Re:security?

[halftrack]

Security is not a hardware issue. If you split open a cat5 that's lying around you can crack right into a unsecure, _wired_ network. Network security is - to most extents - software and transfere protocol reliant and can therefor only exist on a software level. It's fine for vendors to implement hardware firewalling (which really is just hardware implemented software if you get my drift,) but it should not be something to rely on because it's part of the standard (and being part of the standard it would probably be cracked right away.)

No, do not depend on hardware security and don't ever think it's more secure than software security. Secure your LAN as needed, stay in control and know that pretty much anything that goes through the air can be picked up by virtually anyone. VPN, crypt and tunnell (or do whatever it is those security freaks do), don't trust anyone else to secure your network and data.

Re:security?

[alexandre]

But then the access point can still serve as a local relay for rogue user? what if you dont want that?

Re:security?

[timeOday]

I can't speak for hardware solutions, but my access point is a linux box with a pcmcia/pci adapter. I simply firewalled off all packets on that interface other than on the ssh port (my VPN runs over ssh).

The general rule is to treat the 802.11 interface just like a connection to that other big insecure network, the Internet.

Re:security?

[macemoneta]

If you want to prevent rogue users, connect the wired network termination (PCI/PC card, Ethernet bridge or access point) to a PC with only the IPSEC or SSH connections permitted by firewall.

Only users with secure, authenticated, access will be able to pass data through the network.

Rogue users will still be able to connect to the wireless segment, but they won't be able to get anywhere. The only data they will see will be encrypted in the IPSEC or SSH tunnels. Nothing to see, nowhere to go.

Re:security?

[SirCrashALot]

Firewall, VPN, or SSH. Just tunnel. Put MAC address restrictions in place. Anyone who can spoof a MAC address will probably have other ways of getting in and WEP won't help.

Re:security?

[C60]

While not having strong security out of the box is by no means acceptable for any hardware (or software for that matter) it's not altogether difficult to secure a wireless network given an intermediate level of networking experience. You can even do some really cool stuff with this setup if you have some programming skills.

My 802.11b network terminates directly into a linux firewall running freeswan with the Checkpoint client I stole from an old job. I understand that the ebootis package will also work.

I also run tinydns, dhcp, a transparent web cache/proxy and a webserver on the firewall.

Everyone is allowed access to the ipsec interface. People who are not authorized against the firewall who try to browse the net are directed to a page that asks for a password, which I freely give out to friends and neighbors. A cookie gets dropped on their browser to verify that they're authenticated for web browsing.

Anyone that remains unathenticated for more than 5 minutes gets their DHCP lease nuked, and they're blocked at the firewall.

It may sound overly complex, but the original basic system took about a weekend to get setup. The spiffy web authentication system took another couple of days fiddling around in the evenings.

The latest version of this system uses a fanless mini-itx motherboard and a 64M flash disk running the FW off of ramdisk. I used PeeWee Linux to get the basic system set up. I've taken my Linksys wireless unit apart, and crammed it into the same box as the Firewall, and with a little creative use of Big Red Buttons (tm) in the event of a FW compromise, I can reboot the entire thing and I'm back up and running with the clean ramdisk image. No fuss, no muss.

Client security on the XP and linux laptops floating around on the wireless network is left as an exercise to the user. (A mostly futile one in the case of XP)

Of course this obviously isn't a solution for everyone. My network consists of a whopping three internal machines (between the internet and the wireless firewalls), 2 firewalls (one internet facing, the other wireless facing) and 3 laptops. Certainly not a complex network by any stretch of the imagination. However there's not a chance in hell that my father would be able to pull something like this off. But, with a little creativity and a few skills, it's not too difficult to achieve a fair level of security.

Re:security?

[khafre]

You're right. There is a market hole out there right now that could be plugged. I've been hoping one of the mass-market vendors will pair a WAP with a router that will do IPsec. Netgear has a cheap NAT/VPN/Firewall box. I think they should pair this with a WAP and just run IPsec over the wireless link. Most modern operating systems support IPsec in one form or another. Screw WEP.

Re:security?

[indiigo]

There is a difference. On my internal wired Network, I don't have to fear someone sniffing packets 24/7. I can put physical safeguards like block public cable spaces, and IPsec filtering is much easier than having to deal with every broadcast second being potentially intercepted.

And the tools to intercept wireless sniffers is in infancy, and it's at a cat & mouse stage now, so those sniffing have the upper hand. Whereas IDS systems are proven and far easier to setup.

Security is definately a hardware issue. not as black and white, however it is a lot more difficult to sniff a wire.

Re:security?

[cschieke]

I understand the concern, but I'm not certain the facts support the position. Classic IPsec client VPN's seem to provide adequate security for traversing the Internet back to a corporate data network, why is the wireless environment any different?

How many currently unsecured home networks are going to be significantly more at risk if they deploy wireless? (they already are connected to the Internet!)

Now, I'm the first to agree that some platforms (like PDA's, wireless inventory control, and other systems) present challenges to deploying VPN's but it seems like a clear oppurtunity to leverage exsisting investments in "security technology".

How many companies with the need for 54Mbit 802.11g networks don't already have remote access VPN's?

Re:security?

[evilviper]

Well, since the magic that puts Prism -based cards into Access Point (AP) mode is known, you can setup whatever security you want.

The fact that they are cheaper than most other cards is a big plus as well. 200mW+ Prism cards are available, so you make quite a powerful access point of your own that can include IPSec, SSL, SSH, or whatever else you want... with all the advantages of a AP., rather than having to resort to ad-hoc mode.

Re:security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think office building. Think cabling running through walls and ceilings. Think how often you check every inch of cable for a splice.

Think about your internet connection. Do you assume that there are no taps between your gateway and your destination?

In the end, it all boils down to crypto. Every packet that leaves your gateway to the net is in many ways as vulnerable to sniffing as every packet that goes across a wireless link.

Re:security?

[0x0d0a]

Not if the VPN is the only thing that's paid attention to.

Re:security?

[0x0d0a]

There is a market hole out there right now that could be plugged.

For the home, this is not gonna get fixed. People are not going to upgrade for security.

For big businesses, this is frequently already considered. Security-conscious big businesses usually don't allow 802.11b or have a VPN setup.

For small businesses...well, they're gonna get cracked a few times, and then there's gonna be lots of money for security consultants!

Re:security?

[oddityfds]

I have to secure each and every host on my network

Well, that's great! That means you don't need a firewall. Instead you'll have full internet access. Also, your system will be more secure in case you have an intruder inside you network. (That is, someone who rooted one of your hosts or someone with physical access to the network.)

Re:security?

[trance9]

I think a lot of you guys missed my point. Sure I could run IPSec, but that doesn't really make my life easier.

I have to go around and secure _every_ client on my network, because I have to fear that my network was broken. With ether cable I know that my network is physically secure--I control the area that the cable runs though. With 802.11 I don't control the area that the radio waves travel through--anybody can and probably will listen.

Running IPSec isn't a great solution. That protects my bandwidth, but it doesn't protect ME. Someone who cracked WEB could hack any host on my network unless I go through and carefully secure every single one.

With ethernet cable I can install a firewall between my internal and external network, and then worry a lot less about whether some stupid windows box has an open share. With 802.11 an open share on an internal box is obviously a problem.

You could firewall down every box so it only listens to IPSec but you still have to keep the TCP stacks up to date or they'll be subject to protocol stack errors.

I'd feel reasonably secure if 256 bit web actually gave me 256 bits worth of key--but it won't, and WEP can't change the keys either so once it's cracked it's a LOT of work to manually reinstall all the keys--bleh.

WEB is not secure at 256 bits or any other number: the extra "bits" don't actually increase the security by much at all as the protocol is fundamentally broken. It's not a brute force attack that brings it down. It would NOT take "months" to crack 256 bit keys, it's not an exponential increase over 128 or 64: it's a linear increase because WEP is stupid.

People are working on fixes to this, what I was getting at is that I wonder how many people realize it ISN'T fixed yet and are rolling out their cool wireless network.

Just the level of ignorance HERE about it kind of proves my point.

Re:security?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think that" is very reassuring. Anyone got a real cite for this level of strength in 256 WEP?

Re:security?

[Stonent1]

http://www.compcc.net/wirelesssecurity.asp

It says here it took a super computer several weeks to crack 256bit wep.

Re:security?

[Stonent1]

True, you cannot fake a MAC address with your wireless card as it is part of the 802.11 spec that it can't be done. But MAC filtering doesn't really stop people from monitoring your transmissions. So even if they can't "step in" to your network, they can monitor it without proactive security measures.

Re:security?

[Luminous Coward]

It takes about 15 minutes to crack 64-bit WEP. A day to crack 128-bit WEP. I think that 256-bit WEP IIRC would in theory take about a month of non-stop monitoring.

It is somewhat misleading to call a WEP key "64-bit" or "128-bit" since it consists of a 24-bit IV prepended to a 40-bit or 104-bit secret key. The secret part is, in fact, 24 bits shorter than marketers would have us believe.

As for your figures, they are incorrect. Fluhrer, Mantin and Shamir have shown it is possible to "recover an arbitrarily long key in a negligible amount of time which grows only linearly with its size, both for 24 and 128 bit IV modifiers".

Thus, doubling the size of the key will only double the time needed to recover the secret key! Stubblefield, Ioannidis and Rubin have shown that it takes as little as 1,000,000 packets to recover a "128-bit" WEP key. That's less than a day on a lightly loaded WLAN to recover a hypothetical "256-bit" key...

Re:security?

[elixx]

There is still a flaw in the encryption which allows the key to be deduced, not cracked, by analyzing a large number of packets and looking for the flawed one. After a sufficent amount of packets are collected, it takes a minute or so. See AirSnort.

Re:security?

[booch]

If you split open a cat5 that's lying around you can crack right into a unsecure, _wired_ network.

Yes, but you can easily solve that with physical security. And remember, if you don't have physical security, you don't have any security at all. You can't prevent your wireless packets from being evesdropped with physical security.

FYI

[Andorion]

FYI, 802.11g is the spec for wireless networks that provides data rates of up to 54Mbps (54 Megabits per second.)

-Berj

Re:FYI

[phoenix_rizzen]

802.11g is also backwards compatible with 802.11b gear.

It's a hybrid of 802.11b and 802.11a. It uses a lot of the same algorithms as 802.11a, but in the same 2.4 GHz spectrum that 802.11b uses.

Re:FYI

[notonymous]

The only compatibility between .11g and .11b (besides using the same MAC as all 802.11 standards) is that they run in the 2.4 GHz ISM band. The PHY layer used in .11g is completely different from the PHY layer used in .11b; the .11g PHY is closer to the .11a PHY. It stikes me that "compatibility" is being used rather loosely by the marketing engines at various companies. You cannot, for example, take your .11b-only NIC and communicate with an .11g-only AP (which, to me, would be a true sign of backward compatibility). What's happening instead is that vendors are shipping dual mode .11b/.11g APs. Because both operate in the 2.4 GHz band, they only need one RF front end to take the signal down to baseband; after that, a little bit of DSP takes care of the PHY layer differences.

steal their thunder?

[skydude_20]

Just give it a month or whenever Linksys releases theirs, and probably at a cheaper price than Buffalo, then boom, the thunder is back...
(ok, bad pun, sorry)

Re:steal their thunder?

[Anonymous Coward]

it has been released so far as i know, or shipped. i believe the linksys has a lower price point, at least here in the states. buffalo has the majority share of the market in japan, but not really that established here in the states. likewise, linksys doesn't have the largest share of the japanese market. but from what i have learned, first to market isn't always best, but for the bleeding edge folks it doesn't matter. just buy the next one when it comes out, lol.

Hmmmm ....

[mustangdavis]

Check linksys.com before posting stuff like this ...

This looks more like free advertising than a top story .... and this is fale advertising! They aren't first ;P

Instead, lets do Buffalo Tech a faovr .... I'm going to tell them to:

RUN!!!!

Hareware isn't a profitable business unless you are Cisco, 3Com, HP, Sun, or Compaq. And besides, I'm sure that Micro$haft will beat them out of the market by taking a loss on their hardware until they control the market ....

Get out, while you still can!!

Re:Hmmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

actually they are the first, linksys had to delay their .11g line. you can order buffalo's stuff now..

Re:Hmmmm ....

[binner1]

I wondered why their (MS) broadband routers and wireless broadband routers were so much cheaper than the competing linksys, 3com and d-link products...now it's all clear!

Re:Hmmmm ....

[Unregistered]

Hareware isn't a profitable business unless you are Cisco, 3Com, HP, Sun, or Compaq.

and apple

Re:Hmmmm ....

[genka]

Hareware isn't a profitable business unless you are Cisco, 3Com, HP, Sun, or Compaq.

You may be wrong. I spoke with Linksys engineer resently, and he told me that they are doing rather well, revenues are up and they don't lay people off. (Linksys is a private company, so their complete financials are not available). They target consumer market and thus have not been hit by downturn.

Re:Hmmmm ....

[jsse]

truth it is. I live in Hong Kong and Linksys is the most popular brandname here. Not because it's a big corporation, but they sell good stuffs at pretty low price. Only Buffalo could barely beat them in this regard. At first, seeing such prices, I thought it's a local company. They are doing pretty good at local retailing for an international company.

Re:Hmmmm ....

[0x0d0a]

Hareware isn't a profitable business unless you are Cisco

or even if you *are* Cisco.

Re:Hmmmm ....

[NevDull]

A little research would show you that the most profitable goods that HP sells are consumer inkjet consumables.

Hrrmmmn,

[Hawthorne01]

802.11g is out, and MacWorld SF is in a week....

Given Apple's early adoption of 802.11b, are all us Mac users in for a nice surprise at the the SteveNote regarding wireless?

Re:Hrrmmmn,

[jeffehobbs]

Yeah, but what Dynamic Ornamental Appearance will the new 802.11g cards have? Maybe they will change color when your credit card number is being wirelessly intercepted.

~jeff

Re:Hrrmmmn,

[Anonymous Coward]

MacWorld SF is going to be all about Bluetooth, I think .. though it would be cool if Apple busted out some new wireless networking tech .. I'm just getting ready to dive into the wonderful (insecure) world of 802.11 ...

its cheap too!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www2.warehouse.com/product.asp?pf%5Fid=DEB3 743&cat=pc&blind=

only $130 for the access point

The client card is $50

http://www2.warehouse.com/product.asp?pf%5Fid=DE C5 356&cat=pc&blind=

Not bad.

Re:its cheap too!

[sk3tch]

Yeah...apparently too cheap:

http://www2.warehouse.com/product.asp?pf%5Fid=DEB3 743&cat=pc&blind=

"The product you requested is currently not available."

http://www2.warehouse.com/product.asp?pf%5Fid=DEC5 356&cat=pc&blind=

"The product you requested is currently not available."

Price mistake or did they sell out due to Slashdotters feverishly picking them up? :)

Re:its cheap too!

[booch]

It works a lot better if you use the correct URLs instead of the ones that Slashdot munged:

• http://www2.warehouse.com/product.asp?pf%5Fid=DEB3 743&cat=pc
• http://www2.warehouse.com/product.asp?pf%5Fid=DEB5 356&cat=pc

And they are in stock.

from website: 1 Mbps: 1870ft(570m) outdoor.

[tcc]

Speed outdoor indoor.
54 Mbps. 165ft(50m) 65ft(20m)
18 Mbps: 490ft(150m) 245ft(75m)
11 Mbps. 590ft(180m) 410ft(125m)
1 Mbps: 1870ft(570m) 410ft(125m)

Too bad there aren't any 10Mbs+ *low cost* hardware for let's say 5,000M radius, that would surely be cool for remote regions. Everything is so expensive when you want just a bit more range. It's okay if a community wants to build something behind a bigger pipe, but you need a lot of people to be able to pay off for both the pipe and the hardware at that point. I guess the PDA/cellular combo is still a better option for specific remote cases for now.

Re:from website: 1 Mbps: 1870ft(570m) outdoor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Using cheap off the shelf omni-directional antennas, low cost amplification, and standard 802.11b APs you can easily get 802.11b to cover a radius of 6 miles+. This technology already exists, is very low cost, and is being used by WISP's in rural areas. Manufacturer's ranges are based on standard output and built-in antenna.

Anonymous Coward

Re:from website: 1 Mbps: 1870ft(570m) outdoor.

[0x0d0a]

Too bad there aren't any 10Mbs+ *low cost* hardware for let's say 5,000M radius

So you want a cheap, 10Mbps+, 5000M range networking system?

Pick any two.

Re:from website: 1 Mbps: 1870ft(570m) outdoor.

[bgat]

Care to post any links?

Simple solution.

[Krapangor]

Drill a hole in every wall so that the radio waves can float through.

Re:Simple solution.

[octalc0de]

Blockquoth the poster: [with sig]

Drill a hole in every wall so that the radio waves can float through.
--

You, too, can become a mensa member !

The irony! The irony!

Article title.

[charon_on_acheron]

Am I the only one that saw that as "802.11g Harddrive Arrives"? I was wondering how the hell a wireless harddrive would work, and who really needs that much versatility anyway.

Time to go home and get drunk I guess. By the way, does anyone out there light fireworks for New Years Eve?

Re:Article title.

[Jaysyn]

Yes, my parents bought around $400 worth of rockets & mortars this year from Phantom Fireworks for their yearly New Years celebration. Too bad it looks like rain this year....

Phantom sells the *good* fireworks that are probably illegal in your state. And mine for that matter but seeing as the sheriff of the county I live in has a stake in the business, I doubt it's going anywhere any time soon.

Happy New Year

Jaysyn

p.s. I'm in Florida

Re:Article title.

[I Am The Owl]

Dude, I don't know what part of Florida you're in, but some guys down at the beach were lighting off some serious mortars out there in the pouring rain and lightning. We don't even live that close to the beach and our house was shaking.

Re:Article title.

[Jaysyn]

Thankfully it stopped raining around 11:30 where I live so we got to stay dry while we were shooting them off.

Jaysyn

p.s. I'm in north Florida, near Jacksonville.

802.11g

[r]

btw, for those who haven't heard of 802.11g - it's a new standard for higher-speed transmission in the same 2.4GHz band. it promises 20+ Mbps (maybe even up to ~54Mbps), in contrast to the 11 Mbps of 802.11b.

it's interesting, though, that the standard is still in the draft stage, scheduled for ratification in mid-2003, and hardware manufacturers are already rolling out implementations. not surprising, given market conditions, but let's hope that any changes will be minor, and fixable in firmware. :)

see the P802.11 status report at IEEE for more details...

price

[pummer]

For the price, I'll stick with my D-Link, thanks

Well, yes and no...

[Akardam]

AFAIK, 802.11g is the spec that allows up to 54Mbps at 2.4GHz, as opposed to 802.11a, which is 54Mbps at 5GHz.

Re:Well, yes and no...

[Anonymous Coward]

eep, don't run your microwave!

Bollock! There is no 802.11g

[TechyImmigrant]

802.11g is not a standard. The standard is not yet written. It is in a draft form. At the most recent 802.11 meeting it was in comment resolution and the text was being changed in significant ways.

Claiming compliance to 802.11g at this date is to lie.

PBCC or OFDM phy based equipment at 2.4Ghz is not at this time 802.11 anything. It is proprietary. Buy it and you are buying proprietary, non interoperal stuff. Kids, just say 'no'.

Re:Bollock! There is no 802.11g

[Nathanbp]

Very true. It claims complaince just to the draft standard and on their website promises free replacement if necessary to meet IEEE 802.11g when it is finalized. I still wouldn't buy it b/c you'll probably have to send it back, but in the end you will end up with 802.11g compliant stuff.

Re:Bollock! There is no 802.11g

[gowmc]

From what I read on the linked sites, the company selling the hardware will replace anything sold now that doesnt meet the 802.11g standards when they are made (mid 2003?), with something that does.

This is done so the people who need the bleeding edge of wireless networking don't have to wait, and their investment doesn't go down the drain when an official standard is made.

Re:Bollock! There is no 802.11g

[gwernol]

802.11g is not a standard. The standard is not yet written. It is in a draft form. At the most recent 802.11 meeting it was in comment resolution and the text was being changed in significant ways.

Claiming compliance to 802.11g at this date is to lie.

All true, but note that Buffalo do not claim this. From the website linked in the submission:

"54g delivers the fastest possible data rate defined by the proposed IEEE802.11g draft specification"

and

" As you may know, IEEE802.11g is slated to be certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance in mid 2003. We understand this could affect current 802.11g technology. We are dedicated to ensuring that our customers have the most current and reliable products available on the market today. If the certification materially changes the principal operating features of our pre-standard 802.11g products, we will replace or upgrade any of those products at no charge and provide toll-free technical support."

So not only do Buffalo plainly state that this technology based on the draft standard, but they also offer free replacement or upgrade once the standard is ratified. Sounds like a pretty good way to deal with this. Doesn't at all sound like:

It is proprietary. Buy it and you are buying proprietary, non interoperal stuff. Kids, just say 'no'.

Try reading the links before getting on your high horse.

Re:Bollock! There is no 802.11g

[kazrak]

This isn't the first time companies have come out with hardware to fill a demand while the standard was being fought over. (V.34 and V.90 come to mind specifically.) Companies put out the early releases because people wanted them - then, when the standard finalized, a firmware upgrade brought everyone up-to-date.

I hardly think that somebody releasing product (with promise of upgrades - go check their website, they state that 'If the certification materially changes the principal operating features of our pre-standard 802.11g products, we will replace or upgrade any of those products at no charge and provide toll-free technical support.') based on a not-quite-finalized standard deserves to be called 'proprietary, non interoperal' and similar bad words.

802.11a?

[BitHive]

Can someone give me a crash course on the differences between 802.11a, 802.11b and this 802.11g (other than the theoretical top speeds). I've seen plenty of stuff about 802.11b, and now this story on 802.11g, but 802.11a seems to be largely ignored.

Re:802.11a?

[Gaewyn L Knight]

802.11b is what most equipment uses now... it uses the 2.4ghz spectrum and maxes at 11mb/s
802.11a uses 5.8ghz spectrum (less range but not as much interference) and runs at 22mb/s or 54mb/s depending on manufacturer.
802.11g is an "upgrade" to 802.11b that is backwards compatible in the 2.4ghz spectrum but also runs speed up to 22mb/s or 54mb/s

802.11g is still a working draft (not a standard) however enough of the standard has been fleshed out that flash upgrades for devices should bring them easily into compliance when/if any changes are announced to the end standard. This is also getting so much press because since it is 100% backwards compatible with 802.11b you only change your access point and you can start attaching higher speed devices. 802.11a you have to change all your clients or have 2 access points going (or linksys's dual 802.11a/802.11b access point)

802.11a is largely being ignored because so far few manufacturers have outdoor/longhaul equipment for it. Most emphasis on this standard has been on access points for internal networks. Until companies put out equipment that can take better antennas the range is stodgy (and in 5.8ghz the range is still less even with those antennas)

Re:802.11a?

[TechyImmigrant]

>This is also getting so much press because since it is 100% backwards compatible with 802.11b

Except for 802.11g BSSes with short slot time screwing up 802.11b overlapping BSSes.

Re:802.11a?

[div_2n]

802.11b and 802.11g operate in the 2.4 Ghz band. The 2.4 range offers three non-overlapping channels. 2.4 Ghz is the natural resonance frequency of water (i.e. microwave ovens).

802.11a operates on the 5.3 Ghz range. It offers eight non-overlapping channels.

You don't hear much about 802.11a because it is newer and has less market penetration than 802.11b. It hasn't had time to come into its own yet.

You should probably expect to hear more about it as the 2.4 range gets really saturated.

Re:802.11a?

[0x0d0a]

You don't hear much about 802.11a because it is newer and has less market penetration than 802.11b. It hasn't had time to come into its own yet.

I doubt it ever will.

First, it costs significantly more. 802.11b is *cheap*.

Second, there's a big installed 802.11b base. The WAPs aren't that big of a deal -- it costs something to yank it out, but it's not that bad. However, trying to convince every person entering your network or visiting to obtain an 802.11a card is non-trivial.

Security mathers?

[alexandre]

Does this 802.11g standard fix the security issue we had with 802.11b ? If not, which 802.11* will fix that? :)

Re:Security mathers?

[TechyImmigrant]

TGi deals with security. So that would be 802.11i.
In the interim there is WPA. WPA is not an 802.11 thing, it is a WECA spec. It is poor mans security, better than WEP but worse than 802.11i.

Re:Security mathers?

[alexandre]

and are the 802.11* standard independant of each other or are they all a complete solution to the wireless problem? (i mean, is 802.11i an add-on to other 802.11(a | b | g) standard?) and when is that going to be available? :-)

Re:Security mathers?

[TechyImmigrant]

They [e,f,g,h,i] will all get rolled up into one big honking spec called 802.11-200[3|4|5|6] or whenever. The mismatches between the text of the individual specs get cleaned up at this point. That will be the spec.

The last big honking rolled up spec was 1999. That incorporated 802.11b for 11mbps at 2.4Ghz

The approved individual drafts will get approved by the working group, then approved at sponsor ballot and then they will sit around waiting to be incorporated into a unified spec. The approved drafts that have been through sponsor ballot are OK to implement to, in that they will not change.

Re:Security mathers?

[Anonymous Coward]

802.11i. That's also the task group for security enhancements. They are developing the Temporal Key Integrity Protocol (TKIP), it should be out any day. It's a hack-type thing on top of the current hardware which makes snooping WLANs a lot harder.

However, that's only a rest top. Good security will be achieved when the 802.11i standard is finalized, it'll be called the Wireless Robust Authentication Protocol (WRAP). It consists of the old 802.1x local area network authentication system (you ever see the tab which says 'authentication' when you browse your NICs settings in Windows XP?) for user authentication and AES for encryption.

Re:Security mathers?

[arkane1234]

-- Quote --
Does this 802.11g standard fix the security issue we had with 802.11b? If not, which 802.11* will fix that? :)
-- end quote --
There really is no security issue at all, more or less people looking for security at the wrong level. If you picked up a brand spanking new Cat10g cable set (made-up nextgen wire tech) and a Linksys 10G-base switch, would you expect it to provide the security, also?
Wireless technology is simply wired technology on a different medium. It's secured the exact same way, through firewalls, and miscellaneous other security measures used commonly.

The first thing I would do if I put wireless on the network I am currently attached to is slap the access point right in front of a firewall/packet-processor. After that, use DHCP to provide the IP via MAC address, and use IPSec thoroughly. I don't use IPSec right now, simply because the chance of someone getting ahold of a piece of Cat5e and tapping my network is very remote. (Home network) However, with wireless it's like tossing 10 thousand CAT5e cables into the street. LOL

I'm not trying to put ya down for that question, in fact it seems really commonplace. It's just that it bugs me when people expect that media (be it CAT5, wireless, tokenring, etc) to provide the security. Even government installations are expecting this, and I've had the fine opportunity to sit for hours trying to explain to them exactly what the differences are. Not too many, other than no physical medium other than radio frequencies.

Nice whitepaper

[edwilli]

http://www.irit.fr/~Ralph.Sobek/wifi/802_11g_white paper.pdf

Re:mod linksys posts down

[Anonymous Coward]

::sigh::

Well let's see if I reply that the guy doesn't know what he is talking about then he will flame me. If I get mad, then we start a flame war.

Ohh well, anyway the truth (from the horses mouth so too speak) is that Linksys is shipping them as of yesterday. People purchase it (and if they didn't then what the hell is that box sitting on my computer for?).

And if you start flame war? Well then do it by yourself cause I am over and out.

Buffalo Gear is Ok...

[Radix42]

...although the manuals are VERY badly translated from Chinese. Had no trouble with a Buffalo AP with various Windows flavors, Mac OS 9 and X, and Linux/BSD releases...but their Windows config program for their 802.11b Card was very icky (it was much easier to get working under Linux, IIRC it was a standard Lucent chipset :-)

Anyway, 2 years ago their gear was the cheapest 802.11b I found, and worked fine (Windows users deserve their pain, no?)

linksys just released their 802.11g WAP

[Anonymous Coward]

w00t - linksys released their system today
http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp ?grid=3 3&scid=35&prid=505

Is it reasonably secure now?

[g4dget]

Did they fix the serious security problems (weak keys) with 802.11b in 802.11g, or do I still need kludgy workarounds in software?

Re:Is it reasonably secure now?

[mrneutron]

Weak keys were addressed by 'WEP+', an 802.11b firmware upgrade which negates the weak inititialization vector attack. WEP+ is now available from most vendors.

Many 802.11b APs also allow separate xmit and recv keys, making WEP attacks much more difficult.

Then disable SSID broadcasts (making your 802.11b wireless network invisible to tools like netstumbler).

WEP certainly has its weaknesses (especially when 802.11b was first released), but is arguably 'reasonably secure' today. It's far from perfect, but is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

Re:Is it reasonably secure now?

[TechyImmigrant]

>It's far from perfect, but is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

Oh yes it is.
WEP+ is not a standard. Different vendors have different means of avoiding (or not) weak keys.

Problem 1: Weak key avoidance just makes the IV space get exhausted quicker.

Problem 2: There are likely to be new classes of weak keys discovered that invalidate the weak key skipping mechanisms and further shink the IV space.

Problem 3: If you have no weak keys, then IV space exhaustion gets you in the end.

Problem 4: To solve IV space exhaustion within the current WEP structure, you need rapid rekeying. There is no rapid rekeying spec. 802.1X is used be vendors in the wild, but only in proprietary ways, since as a standard it doesn't work over a non secured channel like 802.11.

Problem 5: 802.1X has some fundamental layer violation problems with networks that don't have an ethertype (like 802.11). Ethernet is fine. It has an ethertype.

Re:Is it reasonably secure now?

[g4dget]

Well, thanks, but that doesn't quite answer the question. If I buy an 802.11g network, do I still have to worry about all this stuff?

Re:Is it reasonably secure now?

[mrneutron]

802.11g has the same security as 802.11b.

Re:Is it reasonably secure now?

[TechyImmigrant]

> Well, thanks, but that doesn't quite answer the question. If I buy an 802.11g network, do I still have to worry about all this stuff?

Yes.

Re:Is it reasonably secure now?

[mrneutron]

Could you detail a real-world attack that would break the security of the network I described above? Also, how long this real-world attack would take to complete?

In my tests, Airsnort, etc., were painfully slow on normal WEP networks, nevermind WEP+ (point taken that it's not standard) with dual keys.

I'm not arguing with your points: 'reasonable security' is highly subjective (a home user and a bank would have different answers). I'd like to know what specific steps someone would need to take to break into a network as I described today.

Re:Is it reasonably secure now?

[Luminous Coward]

Could you detail a real-world attack that would break the security of the network I described above?

I suppose you've already found aboba's page and Cisco's page.

As far as the SSID is concerned: "Some access-point vendors, including Cisco, offer the option to disable SSID broadcasts in the beacon messages. The SSID can still be determined by sniffing the probe response frames from an access point".

For a description of a real-world attack on WEP, I would recommend "Using the Fluhrer, Mantin, and Shamir Attack to Break WEP" by Stubblefield, Ioannidis, and Rubin. They showed it was possible to recover a 104-bit key in a few hours...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Congrats you're an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupidity isn't funny.

Waiting for combo card...

[otis wildflower]

... preferably one that will fit into my TiG4 and combine 802.11b/(a|g) and Bluetooth.

Perhaps that upgrade will be available when it's included in the next TiG4 (groundless rumor)?

Crash Course, Comin' Up!

[Akardam]

• 802.11b: The first widely available wireless networking spec. Up to 11Mbps at 2.4GHz. Widely adopted by people who really wanted wireless NOW.
  
• 802.11a: The second available wireless spec. Up to 54Mbps at 5GHz. This had the advantage of placing the transmissions in a less populated band. However, most people who wanted wireless networking already had 802.11b equipment, and didn't feel that the faster speed was really worth it, hence the slower adoption.
  
• 802.11g: Basically, faster 802.11b. Up to 54Mbps at 2.4GHz. This has the advantage of running in the same frequency range. I believe that 802.11g equipment may interoperate with 802.11b, but I'm not sure. I also believe that 2.4GHz wireless has a bit of a distance advantage over 5GHz, but don't quote me on that.
  

Hope this helps.

Re:Crash Course, Comin' Up!

[EvilBudMan]

--I also believe that 2.4GHz wireless has a bit of a distance advantage over 5GHz, but don't quote me on that.--

That is true for sure although in theory the speed should be higher at 5GHz. Of course when you are in the GHz you can't go very far, on the earth of course. In space, well you have a straight shot. We'll anyhow I'm a little rusty on electronics right now. But I think you can be quoted on that.

Re:Crash Course, Comin' Up!

[caino59]

One thing I've failed to see anyone mention in these posts is D-Link's 802.11b setup, that when used with their equipment allows you to theoretically reach speeds of 22Mbps @ 2.4GHz.

I have the D-Link setup and have been more than happy with it.

I've also heard of people flashing Linksys and similar routers with the D-Link firmware, but do your research before hosing your router ;oP

Also, phones are starting to move to the 5GHz range....and being that the proposed 802.11g spec would operate at 2.4GHz..could we see phones possibly start to move away from the 2.4GHz range? which could be a benefit, especially when boosting signal strength becomes more popular as people crave more distance from there Wi-Fi networks...

Re:Crash Course, Comin' Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct on both accounts. 11b and 11g will play nice and 2.4GHz will give you better range than 5GHz.

Re:Crash Course, Comin' Up!

[evilviper]

The only thing you screwed up was the first line. 802.11b was certainly not the first, and very likely not the widest adopted.

It just happened to be the first, standard, high-speed, affordable, wireless protocol, for computers. Now that is a lot of exceptions, but take away just about any of them, and you will discover that something else fullfilled that niche before 802.11b.

<SARCAMS>
I suppose Linux was the first open source operating system too.
</SARCAMS>

Re:Crash Course, Comin' Up!

[notonymous]

I believe that 802.11g equipment may interoperate with 802.11b, but I'm not sure.

No, .11g equipment will not inter-operate with .11b equipment. The physical layers are very different. Most vendors are shipping dual mode .11b/.11g equipment. Because both operate in the 2.4 GHz ISM band, they have one RF front end to bring the signal down to baseband and then apply a little DSP to handle the different PHYs.

Correct

[Andorion]

But 802.11g is also backwards compatible with 802.11b (11Mbps at 2.4GHz) and 802.11a (54Mbps at 5GHz.)

Read up on all the specs for the different 802.11 standards at ZDnet.

-Berj

Re:Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... How can a spec which uses the 2.4GHz band be compatible in any way with one which uses 5GHz? On the other hand, if it does both, how much more does that dual-band compatibility cost?

Re:Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

It's definitely dual-band, and no idea about the cost.

Wireless security sucks

[thinkliberty]

Security includes:
Intrusion Detector, 128/64bit WEP, password, MAC Address Registration, Privacy Separator, Dynamic Packet Filtering

I am suprised they don't have built in VPN support or additional encryption to the router like OpenAP (See http://opensource.instant802.com/)

Until this happens using a wireless network is not safe.

Re:Wireless security sucks

[TechyImmigrant]

I thought security included confidentiality, authentication, integrity and non-repudiation. 802.11 currently has none of these in any effective form. The future 802.11i draft is not likely to give you non-repudiation, sorry.

And in other news..

[xchino]

..Wireless Access Points will now instead be referred to as G-spots.

Re:And in other news..

[Anonymous Coward]

come on this is the funniest comment ever.

Re:And in other news..

[sryx]

..Wireless Access Points will now instead be referred to as G-spots.
Yet another example of how porn has pushed a technology further :P
-Jason

Re:And in other news..

[Anonymous Coward]

hey that's funny, I'm gonna have to remember that .. good one!

Re:And in other news..

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as it is known as this, most /.ers will fail at being able to install them or set them up. The reasons will remain a mystery until the version changes from g to p. Anyone guess what "p" would stand for?

Re:And in other news..

[Anonymous Coward]

POPSICLE!

Re:And in other news..

[Yottabyte84]

pussy?

Re:And in other news..

[phillymjs]

Anyone guess what "p" would stand for?

P-spot (pee' spaht) - n. The area directly above the urinal in public restrooms that men stare at, knowing a glance in any other direction would arouse suspicion.

~Philly

Range with 802.11b

[dalutong]

They have a chart on the product's webpage, but does the 11Mps (indoor is 410ft) range apply to 802.11b devices? and does the outdoor (1800ft) apply to 802.11b devices?

If it does, I may just get one of these things. The range in my WAP/router (linksys) sucks. then again -- i would buy a booster if i could find one that works well.

Posted at Broadband reports

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh....This was posted on Broadband Reports yesterday....guy ripped the intro and links directly....

http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/24808

Re:Posted at Broadband reports

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt. It's one thing to post information about stories written by someone else, but this is just plagiarism at its finest. Go buy yourself some originality next time, bub.

deja view

[Anonymous Coward]

I could swear I read this new paragraph before. Oh, that's right. it was yesterday, here:
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/24808

I give free internet access to anyone who wants it

[SHEENmaster]

I am too lazy to enable passwords on my proxy server and WEP can only be enabled through the windows configuration program.

Define irony: They expect me to install Windows to "secure" my wireless network. WEP cracking will probably take less time than learning my proxy configuration.

If you "borrow" WAP access like me, be sure to give some back and let others connect from your equipment.

As for your "wholly securing it", keep any "important" systems behing a wired proxy server. Wireless is great for making my zaurus and iBook more mobile, but I would never use it to let my server connect to my cable modem. Some common sense if your setup will prevent hacking attempts.

4th Post!

[Anonymous Coward]

The CDMA20001xRTT $99/month from PCS(SPRINT)
works OK if you can deal with their routing
problems and the effing transparant proxy that
can take 20 minutes to compress (in violation
of copyright on many occasions) images. It's
real nice if you can afford to run IPIP tunnel
and hang on your own network because the problems
go away provided your on a net they don't regularly mangle the route too. Well there's the total disappearance of bandwidth during their 'free'
night and weekend peaks...
Works, unofficially, with linux via persistant ppp.

Oh, and then there's the question of PCS being in business next month...

In 7 years they'll go retro..

[Anonvmous Coward]

... NX-802.11

It can only do 5 megabits, but'll we be free from broadcast flags!

(Okay, that Enterprise joke might be a little too obscure. I've had too much coffee.)

802.11 alphabet soup

[ez76]

If like me you found yourself asking "what the heck is 802.11g?", this site was pretty helpful.

reference, credit, quotes and plagarism

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that here it is foolish to say, "Give credit where credit is due" as that statement would only count of the actual content was posted on a particular sight and someone used that for their "research" for posting somewhere else. However when it is ripped directly from another source then you must not only "give credit" but must in fact make it clear that it is a quote you are printing. Otherwise it is plagarism. Take out any legal aspect and you are left with the moral and ethical implications to be responsible... something that those who love government, blindly hate capatilism and selectively apply criteria and criticism (hypocrit=liberal) refuse to understand. So in the end I am not surprised at this.

old news

[Anonymous Coward]

This was announced yesterday by Buffalo and had been up on 80211planet.com hours before it was noted by broadbandreports and the like. Give credit where credit is due.

Giving Credit

[DBordello]

I was the original poster. Sorry, it completly slipped my mind. I knew where I got it from, but somewhere in between pasting from dslreports.com I forgot to credit them. They deserve it.

Buffalo WBR-G54 Review

[Wag]

http://www.timhiggins.com/Reviews-33-ProdID-WBRG54 -1.php

Breaking News

[bakawally]

In a related story Buffalo Technology's main offices were raided. They are charged with supplying terrorists with technology to access goatse more quickly.

get some mature 802.11b and then we will talk

[codepunk]

None of these companies have figured out how to make good 802.11b equipment, it will be a cold day in hell before I purchase fresh of the shelf g equipment.

ingram micro

[Jucius Maximus]

"Update: 12/31 22:50 GMT by T: Karen Sohl of Linksys writes to say that despite the slip in dates, "Linksys is shipping our line of Wireless-G products. We have been shipping since last week. Honestly not large volume by any means-- but by the end of this week we'll have shipped over 10,000 units to distribution -- Ingram Micro and Tech Data." That's where even large retailers (think Amazon) buy their stock."

Having worked for some years in computer reselling, I have dealt with Ingram Micro from time to time. I must say that they are not to be trusted. More than one time we received something from them where it was supposed to be brand new but it had clearly been shipped back and forth from repair shops, as shown by the stickers on the packaging. Don't trust them unless losing your business would mean a significant ($millions) loss in business for them.

Re:ingram micro

[ogre2112]

I deal with them daily, and haven't run into anything even resembling what you've stated.

Ok, if they are the devil.. Who would be a company to trust then?

Re:ingram micro

[wolf-]

I will not only second the afore mentioned opinion, but add that Ingram Micro recently told all its small business customers to go screw themselves, that they were cutting off all their lines of credit.

Was it for bad credit reviews? Was it for late payments? No, it was because you were small, insignificant in their minds. Let me see, buy overpriced, backordered kit form Ingram and pay cash now, or get it on credit from another supplier? Hrm, thanks for your support Ingram. It was the small shops that MADE Ingram Micro, so f*ck them.

Re:ingram micro

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100%. Ingram is TERRIBLE to deal with and is the ONLY supplier who would not offer credit terms.

Their phone system sucks and their overall attidude of screwing the sub $1 million yearly purchase accounts is discusting.

Re:ingram micro

[Jucius Maximus]

"Ok, if they are the devil.. Who would be a company to trust then?"

Either gullible or a big volume buyer.

Re:ingram micro

[plasticquart]

Speaking of computer component suppliers... we've been looking over the pricing of all of the larger suppliers and have yet to find one we want to work with for the majority of our purchases (price is our biggest concern).

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Hack Me!

[glrotate]

Sheesh. These antennae just scream it.

Linksys has one that works with your existing unit

[Akardam]

Wireless Signal Booster

I admit that I haven't played around with the booster, but I have deployed a few of the WAP/Router combos in the field, and they do seem to be a little on the short-ranged side. It might have something to do with it being a combo - I honestly don't know. Anyway, I'd consider that unit above.

Can do *way* better than that...

[Goonie]

With a pair of 8db omnidirection antennas and a 30 milliwat card you can quite easily get a couple of kilometres range with 802.11b. With two high-gain dish antennas very long ranges can be achieved. If the right permits can be issued (and if you're trying to do really long range it tends to indicate that you're not likely to be interfering with too much else) you could whack a nice amplifier on the omni setup and improve your range further.

It looks like 802.11g's ranges at full speed will be maybe 1/3 that of 802.11b. That tends to suggest that maybe the omni route will not be nearly as productive, but it should still be quite feasible to have reasonably long-distance high speed links using yagis or dishes.

Tim screwed up

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a mistkae when he posted it. Timothy screwed up!

It's not proper English!!1 Oh noes!

Linksys had this on the shelves for ~6 months...

[smartfart]

Someone wanna help me out here? The linksys gear on the shelves now states that it's 802.11b gear, but goes up to 22 Mbps. Their older stuff (I've got 3 of the older ones, from when Office Whatever closed out their stock a few months back) is straight 11 Mbps.

Is their current 22 Mbps stuff forward-looking to 802.11g? Anyone know?

profitable?

[Pranjal]

Hareware isn't a profitable business unless you are Cisco....
You should have said this to Cisco when they started out of Stanford labs based on bright ideas of 2 young students.

correction

[elixx]

s/flawed one/flawed ones

Re:correction

[Stonent1]

Yes, those were the times I was quoting.

IEEE Task Group g

[Luminous Coward]

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers website has a page detailing TGg's progress.

This is the proposed schedule:

• January 2003 - Forward Draft 5.0 to Sponsor Ballot
• March 2003 - Resolve Comments from Sponsor Ballot and Recirculate to Sponsor Ballot Pool
• May 2003 - Submission to RevCom
• June/July 2003 - Estimated Final Approval of IEEE 802.11g

Try powerline networking

[Anonymous Coward]

Try this site guys should solve your wall and any obstacle that weakens your wifi signals.

http://www.speedstream.com./products_powerline.h tm l

Problem solved

[Anonymous Coward]

this should solve all your problems.

http://www.speedstream.com./products_powerline.h tm l

Last Post!

[alpg]

I was in a bar and I walked up to a beautiful woman and said, "Do you live
around here often?" She said, "You're wearing two different-color socks."
I said, "Yes, but to me they're the same because I go by thickness."
She said, "How do you feel?" And I said, "You know when you're sitting on a
chair and you lean back so you're just on two legs and you lean too far so
you almost fall over but at the last second you catch yourself? I feel like
that all the time..."
-- Steven Wright, "Gentlemen's Quarterly"

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...