Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ZigBee Wireless Standard Ratified

Posted by michael on from the do-you-zig? dept.

ductormalef writes "Today, the ZigBee Alliance announced the release (pdf) of version 1.0. ZigBee is a standard for low data-rate (250kbps max) wireless personal area networks (WPANs). It utilizes the IEEE 802.15.4 hardware and MAC layers which utilize frequency bands at 898MHz, 902-928MHz, and 2.4GHz. ZigBee supports mesh networking and claims to be 'wireless control that simply works.' They claim to be a solution to everything from wireless home automation to industrial control."

6 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Could this mark the end of blue tooth? by svnt · · Score: 2, Informative

    No. ZigBee is a very low-bandwidth, low-power *protocol*. Just as Bluetooth is a protocol with higher brandwidth and higher power demands. There are very few applications where you could justify using both of these protocols.

  2. Re:price sensitive by ucdoughboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Open Source Network stack built on zigbee radios already exits. Check out the tinyOs effort. Compare to Blue tooth, zig bee radios are much more power efficient.

  3. Re:Standard?? Already?!! by judgecorp · · Score: 2, Informative

    Exactly. The IEEE publishes the standard. The Zigbee Alliance publishes a specification which makes sure that products that meet the standard work together (there's usually some grey areas in the standard).

    It's a standard, alright. Whether it gets into widespread use is another question (anyone remember OSI?) and that depends on having products quickly.

    But it seems like Zigbee is onto this one, with some pretty aggressive plans (interview with the Zigbee chair I mentioned earlier).

    Peter Judge
    Techworld

  4. Re:Could this mark the end of blue tooth? by judgecorp · · Score: 2, Informative

    Zigbee could care less about Bluetooth. It's after a much bigger area (sensors) that Bluetooth doesn't touch.

    If Bluetooth dies of its own accord, Zigbee could take up some of the slacek according to Bob Heile of the Alliance (did I mention my interview with him too many times already?)

    Peter Judge
    Techworld

  5. Re:I saw this at a TI conference recently... by rcw-home · · Score: 2, Informative
    I'm also not sure I want my home devices on an unauthenticated wireless network.

    Zigbee uses AES for authentication and encryption.

  6. Re:bluetooth called by Excelsior · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know you are telling a joke, but I'm not sure whether it is more humorous or innacurate.

    I suggest reading a nice summary over at MIT Technology Review.

    But since you obviously don't read the articles, let me cover it for you:
    - Zigbee is power efficient. A ZigBee switch should be able to run off watch batteries for years. Bluetooth - HA!
    - Zigbee stack is a small 28k. Bluetooth's stack is 250k.
    - Zigbee networks can support up to 255 nodes, and can be switched to 16 bit addressing to support 65,000 nodes. Bluetooth can have 8 active nodes, 255 total.
    - Zigbee range is around 30 meters. Bluetooth is 10 meters.
    - Zigbee supports three network topologies (star, mesh, cluster tree). Bluetooth supports a dynamic piconet topology.
    - Zigbee enabled devices can be built cheaply. Bluetooth was *supposed* to be cheap. This is due to the short stack.

    And the list goes on. See the ZigBee FAQ.

    Zigbee is designed for a very specific application (switching, censors, controllers, etc.). And by this list, you can see that it was specifically designed to meet the needs of that application. Bluetooth does not and cannot support that application, just like Zigbee cannot support the application Bluetooth was designed for (cable replacement).