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.
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?
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.
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"?
The frequency that water absorbs has to be really quick specific... (2.45Ghz more or less) but, more importantly, if your out of that band by much (like a couple of mhz either side) water just doesnt absorb it. What DOES worry me is that while water absorbs at 2.45Ghz, we done have a much data which talks about other compounds in the human body, and their absorbtions wavelengths... if i remember my physics correctly though, its belived water has the lowest frequency of absorbption, i.e. everything's only high in the spectrum and not lower. Now, when you consider the trillions apon trillions of different molecules and their different bonds, it would be faily sensible to assume once your above 2.45Ghz, something in the human body (or even external life) may absorb that frequency.. i.e. 5.3Ghz maybe the frequency to cause rotational movement in one of the bonds of a glucose molecule.. or 3.2Ghz may cause vibration in one of the bonds of the hcl which sits on our stomachs... my 0.022 (inc GST)
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.
Are you talking about a repeater? I believe most of the cheap linksys APs can be set up to be repeaters instead.