Slashdot Mirror
Introducing 802.11s - Wireless Mesh Networking
ikewillis writes "Intel has introduced a new wireless networking standard called 802.11s. This standard utilizes a mesh topology, allowing for fully self-configuring networks where each node can relay messages on behalf of others, thus increasing the range and available bandwidth with the number of nodes active within the system, versus the point-to-point structure of existing WiFi networks. This will radically transform WiFi hotspots, allowing the geographical area and available bandwidth on the network to scale with the number of participants."
WiMax and other technologies like it will still be much more important because, do we really want a grid of short range networks that will ultimately cause divisions between different parts of the networks if one node goes down or would we prefer enourmously large networks that overlap each other (the different nodes) once or twice or thrice?
./revolution
Well, mesh networking does not necessarily need a new 802.11x spec. This article on Tom Bridges blog is republished from the first issue of Make outlines how to create mesh networks using an Airport Express.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
The way things are going, cities won't be able to provide this for their citizens. No one needs a network this big for personal usage; if municipal wi-fi is banned, it will be for naught.
I think it sure would be nifty to see this type of AP installed in cars and have uplink points along major highways . . . It'd be a fluid network that would improve with traffic . . . Then again, maybe encouraging heavier traffic is a bad thing . . . it'd still be cool.
What does intel get out of it, besides a new niche (for now - popularity comes later) to sell their hardware into? Last I checked intel wasn't exactly #1 in the AP market, which is where 802.11s will make the biggest splash. I just can't manage to trust intel.
Since it's a [proposed] IEEE standard it will be available to anyone for a nominal fee, yes?
Also, since when did intel invent the idea of a gateway between a mesh network and a non-mesh network? They exist already.
Finally, are there any technical details on intel's proposal anywhere? This article basically tells us nothing except that someone at intel drew up some cute flowcharts to take to the IEEE.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Intel has not introduced the 802.11s standard; Intel has made a proposal to the IEEE, which they will take into consideration while designing the 802.11s standard.
The article makes 802.11s sound like a general mesh standard, which would be really nice. However, what I read on the IEEE Web site recently made it sound like merely a self-configuring version of WDS (so that only access points participate in the mesh). Can anyone provide details on the features of Intel's proposal?
IIRC, the Nintendo DS acts as a router/node to other DS consoles - okay speed may be different but topology is pretty much the same surely?
What happens when a node goes down between several other nodes and the other nodes are now out of range of each other? The network will split and the result will be two seperate networks that are unable to reach each other until the connecting node is up again. Will users be constantly facing problems similar to IRC netsplits? Not to mention that all equipment would need to be replaced to take advantage of this new standard. I'd be more interested in longer range, or more robust signals that can penetrate more obstacles.
...right....so more people in one area all on the same frequency so they can mesh. So how exactly is the speed going to be anything reasonable or reliable if you're increasing the spectrum noise?
Is anyone else even the slightest bit concerned about all the background radiation these technologies create. We have wireless in our homes, FM/AM radio broadcasts floating around, bluetooth devices, WAP's in restaurants, coffee houses, my car dealership, etc. etc. etc. Does anyone have any links to research showing that all of this "noise" is safe to our fragile human bodies? Or is the ability to download porn anywhere, anytime more important to everyone?
Couldn't this theoretically replace the internet altogether? Once the densities of these "s" hotspots is high enough, wouldn't it be theoretically possible to retrieve a page, send an email, etc. without ever having to transmit the message over the internet "proper"?
"once you get licenses in the picture, you disempower the smaller entities and empower the larger entities. And I think that most Americans are starting to see that whenever larger entities gain power over small entities and citizens, then things start to go sour..."
Fine, you can have your home-grown crappy WiFi network with a hundred hops to get to the next town. I can't believe this anti-corporate conspiracy bullshit gets modded up. Most of the products and services I buy are from large corporations. I've had a lot more problems with govt. power abuse than with corporations. The only way corporations can abuse their power is through the govt. anyway. Aside from using the govt., corporations have no power that isn't given to them by choices consumers make. I'll choose WiMax over the kludged WiFi solution any day.
Vote for Pedro
This is a good question and, last I checked, an open research topic. One workaround is to only accept route advertisements from a trusted set of routers.
802.11a = apathy. No one really paid much attention
You're right there, and this makes 802.11a a great thing to have. I'm running my home network on 802.11a, and here are the benefits I reap versus 802.11b/g:
1. When the hardware was available but on the way out, it was -very- cheap to pick up;
2. The range is much more limited than b/g, but big enough to cover my house and backyard, so I have less worry about "sharing" my connection with my neighbors than with b/g;
3. The 802.11a range is underutilized (my neighbors don't have 802.11a, and yours probably don't, either) and doesn't shut down by interference when you use the microwave;
4. Someone wardriving or just playing around with wireless sniffing tools from their bedroom are much less likely to be using 802.11a; in fact, until recently airsnort and related tools didn't even have 802.11a compatibility, and getting 802.11a working with Linux is a PITA compared to 802.11b/g.
So in a way, using 802.11a improves your odds of a secure and non-shared connection in the same way that using Opera improves your odds of picking up a javascript exploit from a web site. That's not security in and of itself, but coupled with VPN and the reduced range, it's very nice indeed.
real solution.
This is the end of the telco. A self-organizing internet of WiFi, once adopted on a massive scale, will obviate the need for the last mile provider. In all the states without protective legislation, municipalities will have one or two huge pipes for the wider municipal network to plug into, say at the Library and Town Hall, and let everyone's 802.11s hardware negotiate with each other the best path to it.
The places that do have protective legislation will find themselves repealing it in the face of enormous public pressure.
The only purpose of the telco will be to provide fiber for institutional and corporate clients concerned with security and guaranteed bandwidth.
Good riddance.
SoupIsGood Food
Will my 802.11s router run at 5mbps in a busy apartment, lending the remaining bandwidth to forwarding other packets?
Will a wardriver in the parking lot be able to DDoS the mesh?
Will I have to disable mesh and disallow all outside traffic the first time I install the router, if I just want to use the router myself? Will I be able to do that?
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Just for the hell of, I did:
Your search - "why is it called 802.11b" - did not match any documents.
I think that's the first time Google every came up with nothing.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Are you talking about a repeater? I believe most of the cheap linksys APs can be set up to be repeaters instead.
I am currently using Loustworld mesh-ap which is compatible with any 802.11b/g client. so far here are my experiences on a high power setup with reliable signal on a 200mw radio: 5mbit actual bandwidth 3-5ms per hop 800ft nlos links
nope, repeaters are not at all the same as a real wireless to wireless router. They do not segment the network or do anything more than simple decode=>retransmit.
a mesh network will allow you to make a multihop wireless network much in the same way as if you had a number of wired network interfaces in your Cisco router. This makes things a lot easier, since the wireless network can be extended in an easy-to-configure way, without any wires. Also, the multihop routing capability increases the capacity of wireless networks. The repeaters actually decrease capacity...
A hundered hops at light speed isn't bad, man. Add to that the increasing proliferation of wired/wireless routers in homes (such as the linksys 4-port / 802.11g DSL router), and the number of hops decreases (and global bandwidth increases).
I mean, sure it's home-grown, but that doesn't necessarily mean crappy. Say you have even half-concentration of WiFi enabled laptops per unit population. You end up with full 2.4GHz saturation and an entrie planet's worth of air bandwidth being utilized, with the hardwires providing shuttles to the rest of the world - and if the wires are still saturated, I'm still connected. Perhaps not via the guy sitting next to me; maybe it's the cute girl at the bar. Maybe its the business student doing spreadsheets on his laptop outside. One would hope it's through the proprietor's WAP on his cable line, or the OC3-connected signal coming from the college down the street.
Don't want to rely on the "crappy" home grown solution? Fine. Buy DSL or cable. I don't even care if you add public WiFi on your router - mine's open. Sure, I have to have software firewalls on all my computers, but that's just safety anyway.
Security will become an issue, but there will come a time when javascript-side md5-challenge-response becomes the standard for even the least significant of login screens (over ssh channels, preferably. I don't care if a site is "trusted" by verisign or not unless I'm using a credit card; I just care that the server's got a public key and that my data stays mine).
Meanwhile, I'm fine with my linux/mini-itx-based secure-tunneled proxy on the wired computer in my house. Hell, it only cost me $300 to build. Coulda been cheaper, but I got the 1.2GHz VIA board.
Point is, it's not a method of delivering Big Pipes to everyone who walks around with a PDA, it's about having an always-on connection wherever you go. And while it's definately not about security, the holes that arise from full wireless saturation are still a new and ripe horizon for the hack/fix cycle (yes, I know it's a money issue to Big Business, but for security-minded folks like you find here on slashdot, it's mostly a fun puzzle game).
As for the Big Business' powering the internet, I don't much give a damn how they feel about eventually becoming nigh obsolete (unless someone figures out a way to send a WiFi signal across an ocean, they'll be needed to maintain the hardwires and satellites). To be honest, they're - well - big. They can take care of themselves. Even when they look like they're curling up in pain like some sort of deeply wounded animal, they're thinking of ways to make or save money off the sympathy, rather than working on new technologies that they can then exploit for further profit at the benefit of citizens (the investment is often higher than the percieved benefit. Corporate entrepreneurs are so few and far between these days).
Meanwhile, with the proliferation of wireless networking and VoIP, how long do you think it will be untill the Bells start screaming bloody murder?
Oh wait, they already are.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1