802.11n Draft 2.0 Approved by Working Group

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

802.11n Draft 2.0 Approved by Working Group

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @07:48AM from the stamp-of-approval dept.

[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.'"

105 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Wires are still better.. Wifi is gimmicky crap by stratjakt · 2007-03-14 07:53 · Score: -1, Troll

n/t

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
1. Re:Wires are still better.. Wifi is gimmicky crap by Kandenshi · 2007-03-14 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.jcshome.net/gallery/Pooh-in-trouble.jpg
  Kitty would agree with you. Wires are delicious.
2. Re:Wires are still better.. Wifi is gimmicky crap by Sunburnt · 2007-03-14 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  *woosh*
  Another sarcasm bullet narrowly misses a modder's noggin, and a post that made me laugh out loud gets modded Troll.
  
  --
  Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
802.11n -- what's the point? by morgan_greywolf · 2007-03-14 07:55 · Score: -1

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.

--
My blog
1. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by Normal+Dan · 2007-03-14 08:08 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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!
  
  --
  A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
2. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by Martin+Blank · 2007-03-14 08:09 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
3. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by soft_guy · 2007-03-14 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  What if you want to stream HD video from your computer to a wireless set top box (like a next gen AppleTV)?
  
  --
  Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
4. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by DeGem · 2007-03-14 08:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Smile It hurts!
5. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by shawn(at)fsu · 2007-03-14 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't even have to be HD, it takes quite some time to transfer content from my Tivo to my computer.
  
  --
  500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
6. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by Radon360 · 2007-03-14 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Silly question: Did your connection slow because of other traffic on the AP, or was your bit error rate becoming too excessive?
7. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  Range is the key for me. Isn't it supposed to double or treble the distance it will work over, versus b/g?
8. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by paeanblack · 2007-03-14 08:20 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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?
9. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by Normal+Dan · 2007-03-14 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
10. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  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.
11. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  I agree. 640kb^H^H^H^H^H 54mbps ought to be enough for anyone.
12. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by gstoddart · 2007-03-14 08:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
13. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  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.
14. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by SeattleGameboy · 2007-03-14 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  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.
15. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by gad_zuki! · 2007-03-14 08:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
16. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by volsung · 2007-03-14 08:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.)
17. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  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.
18. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by drinkypoo · 2007-03-14 09:31 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
19. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by lothos · 2007-03-14 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  (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)
  
  --
  Hosting and Domain name coupons
20. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 09:41 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  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...
21. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by cheater512 · 2007-03-14 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  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.
22. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by speculatrix · 2007-03-14 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  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!
23. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by brian.gunderson · 2007-03-14 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just trying to mentally picture LAX or ORD with several thousand people each hooked up via a 100ft ethernet cable...
  
  --
  Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
24. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by gallwapa · 2007-03-14 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  You can run 100Mbps for hundreds of meters...
  No sir, you can run 100Mbps for 90 meters, :-)
25. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by bionicpill · 2007-03-14 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  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.
26. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by hobbit · 2007-03-14 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  nobody uses that frequency I'm afraid 802.11n does just that...
  
  --
  "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
27. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by AbRASiON · 2007-03-14 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
28. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by AbRASiON · 2007-03-14 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  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.
29. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by JunkmanUK · 2007-03-14 20:56 · Score: 1
  
  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...
30. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by richlv · 2007-03-14 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  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 ;)
  
  --
  Rich
31. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by AbRASiON · 2007-03-14 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  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.
32. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by squoozer · 2007-03-14 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  I used to have a better sig but it broke.
33. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by richlv · 2007-03-14 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Rich
34. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by drinkypoo · 2007-03-15 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
35. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by gad_zuki! · 2007-03-15 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  I think it rescans the area for networks every 30 or 60 seconds which causes a delay. I also know theres an issue with this and USB wifi adapters. Whatever it does at 30 or 60 seconds really messes up some USB wifi cards. THey usually drop link and then re-attach. It has to be exactly 30 or 60 seconds. If its not, then you have other problems.
36. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by speculatrix · 2007-03-15 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  my response was to discussion about how to make the most of 802.11b/g
37. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by hobbit · 2007-03-25 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Then I don't understand your point. Because you seemed to be suggesting buying equipment based on its use of a less congested band, when clearly that is not going to be the case in future due to increasing 802.11n adoption.
  
  --
  "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
38. Re:802.11n -- what's the point? by speculatrix · 2007-03-25 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  it'll take a while for 11n to really take off and cause congestion to 11a users, and by that point 11n will be congested and "useless" too, so you'll have to go for wimax/wibro or even just bite the bullet and put in cat6e cabling!
is it just me or... by fattmatt · 2007-03-14 07:56 · Score: 0

is 802.11_ updated faster than it can be deployed? I'm still on "b" ... am I a loser?
1. Re:is it just me or... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  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.
2. Re:is it just me or... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-15 00:33 · Score: 0
  
  am I a loser?
  
  You are reading /. and your id is fattmatt
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2007-03-14 07:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Real men... by phekno · 2007-03-14 07:56 · Score: 0

use wires.
1. Re:Real men... by 26199 · 2007-03-14 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  For what?
  
  No, wait, I don't want to know.
2. Re:Real men... by aicrules · 2007-03-14 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  For magnet retrieval!! http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/07/plane.diverted.ap /index.html
*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 07:56 · Score: 0

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.
not good? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 07:57 · Score: -1, Offtopic

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!
1. Re:not good? by POTSandPANS · 2007-03-14 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  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..
2. Re:not good? by ICA · 2007-03-14 12:37 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Yes, I know where to get that data.
  
  I believe I have it shoved up my ass, right next to other off-topic shit.
3. Re:not good? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you!
  
  LOL it is quite difficult to find how they do it, I take it you failed.
4. Re:not good? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  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. ;)
5. Re:not good? by Orgazmus · 2007-03-14 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  I just change the SSID to Open.Net
  Help make a worldwide grid of open networks ;)
  
  --
  The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
Draft vs. Final by DCstewieG · 2007-03-14 07:57 · Score: 0

Just curious, if certified Draft 2.0 devices are guaranteed compliant with the final standard, how is Draft 2.0 not final?
1. Re:Draft vs. Final by SeaFox · 2007-03-14 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  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?
2. Re:Draft vs. Final by 26199 · 2007-03-14 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  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?
3. Re:Draft vs. Final by EvanED · 2007-03-14 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:Draft vs. Final by Bretai · 2007-03-14 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  --
  Controlling complexity is the essence of computer programming. -Brian Kernigan
ISO efficiency by Excelcia · 2007-03-14 07:58 · Score: 2

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
1. Re:ISO efficiency by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  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.
2. Re:ISO efficiency by init100 · 2007-03-14 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Im assuming OOXML means OpenOffice XML
  OOXML usually means (Microsoft) Office Open XML. OpenOffice.org uses the Open Document Format (ODF).
About f***ing time by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 07:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

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...
1. Re:About f***ing time by mastershake_phd · 2007-03-14 08:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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?
  
  --
  Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
2. Re:About f***ing time by alienzed · 2007-03-14 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  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...
  
  --
  Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
3. Re:About f***ing time by evilviper · 2007-03-14 16:14 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
They need to prioritize by cyberbob2351 · 2007-03-14 08:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
for sale
I'm a self-modifying sig virus
1. Re:They need to prioritize by EvanED · 2007-03-14 08:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.)
2. Re:They need to prioritize by gad_zuki! · 2007-03-14 08:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  >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.
3. Re:They need to prioritize by FLEB · 2007-03-14 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Information wants to be free.
  Entertainment wants to be paid.
  You just want to be cheap.
4. Re:They need to prioritize by soleblaze · 2007-03-14 10:38 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
Re:Skeptical by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 08:04 · Score: 0

Doesn't draft mean draft.

No, draft means final. Where were you when web 2.0 was launched?
belkin? by TinBromide · 2007-03-14 08:04 · Score: 1

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.

--
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
1. Re:belkin? by stratjakt · 2007-03-14 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
2. Re:belkin? by TechnicalFool · 2007-03-14 17:46 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Cabling industry troll, perhaps? by Radon360 · 2007-03-14 08:14 · Score: 1

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

(teasing)
N already? by Rob+T+Firefly · 2007-03-14 08:17 · Score: 4, Funny

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!"

--
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
1. Re:N already? by Kandenshi · 2007-03-14 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  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!
2. Re:N already? by MindStalker · 2007-03-14 08:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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)
3. Re:N already? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  It looks like "z" is still available.
4. Re:N already? by Wesley+Felter · 2007-03-14 10:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  After z comes aa, ab, etc. 802.3 (Ethernet) is up to ay already.
5. Re:N already? by Nermal6693 · 2007-03-14 17:45 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  We'll just have to start using LETTERv6 instead of v4. However, it'll take several years to catch on.
for the cheapskates by Lord+Ender · 2007-03-14 08:18 · Score: 2

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.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
1. Re:for the cheapskates by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  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 by thanksforthecrabs · 2007-03-14 08:18 · Score: 2

more important than increased speed is the touted additional distance....
Actually... by DogDude · 2007-03-14 08:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
I don't respond to AC's.
1. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, I tend to agree. You are a mouth-breathing fucktard, DogShit!
2. Re:Actually... by EvanED · 2007-03-14 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  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?
Gee, makes you wonder... by Kadin2048 · 2007-03-14 08:54 · Score: 1

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....

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
They'll just have to start using UTF-8... by Kadin2048 · 2007-03-14 08:59 · Score: 1

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

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
guaranteed? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 09:15 · Score: 0

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 by WillAffleckUW · 2007-03-14 09:17 · Score: 1

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?

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1. Re:So long as it's not industry-pushed WiMAX by Wesley+Felter · 2007-03-14 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:So long as it's not industry-pushed WiMAX by WillAffleckUW · 2007-03-14 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
That's great, but what I want to know is... by negated · 2007-03-14 10:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

...will it include priority packet support for Duke Nukem Forever?
1. Re:That's great, but what I want to know is... by aXis100 · 2007-03-14 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  Hehe, that's comedy gold!
Upgrade my old laptop with MiniPCI by qube99 · 2007-03-14 10:31 · Score: 0

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-14 12:09 · Score: 0

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?
Trains Drive Mostly on Rails by bill_mcgonigle · 2007-03-14 12:44 · Score: 1

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.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
1. Re:Trains Drive Mostly on Rails by bill_mcgonigle · 2007-03-14 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The question nobody has asked yet. by Fyzzler · 2007-03-14 16:05 · Score: 1

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.

--
I have one question. If the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture is not in charge of Gundam, then who is?
Ethernet over power lines by pedestrian+crossing · 2007-03-14 21:30 · Score: 1

Has anyone explored/implemented ethernet over powerlines?

Like this?

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

--
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
N-compatible and N-capable by jusDfaqs · 2007-03-15 02:58 · Score: 1

So now I have to go out and purposefully by devices for my computer that are N-compatible or N-capable but, only if I want them to work properly.

Does anyone see the irony here?

--
There are only two steps in the gathering of ultimate knowledge. Open your eyes and, RTFM!