Stanford Team Tries For Better Wi-Fi In Crowded Buildings
alphadogg writes "Having lots of Wi-Fi networks packed into a condominium or apartment building can hurt everyone's wireless performance, but Stanford University researchers say they've found a way to turn crowding into an advantage. In a dorm on the Stanford campus, they're building a single, dense Wi-Fi infrastructure that each resident can use and manage like their own private network. That means the shared system, called BeHop, can be centrally managed for maximum performance and efficiency while users still assign their own SSIDs, passwords and other settings. The Stanford project is making this happen with inexpensive, consumer-grade access points and SDN (software-defined networking)."
also what about stuff like file shearing and other stuff that the cops only look at the IP and not that real end user.
Doesn't this just mean that all of the networks have to be put under the control of a singe entity, and then redistributed amont those living in the condo?
Not an authorized Soylenter
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
All of the WiFi routers (access points) would be under central control for things like assigning them to specific channels.
But the "owner" (student) of the router will get to set things like SSID and QoS and such.
VPN called. It wants its acronym back.
Better known as 318230.
Let's say you live in an apartment building and you can see 16 different SSIDs. Is it slow because there's a lot of data in total being transferred, or does CSMA just collapse (gridlock) so hardly anybody is getting anything? It seems like back when ethernet was actually used as a shared medium (hubs) throughput was good up to about 85% and then it would just die.
It's a shame the kids these days can't be bothered to plug a computer into the Ethernet drops that were installed in their rooms 20 years ago.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
"Software Defined Networking", as Stanford uses the term, means a centrally controlled virtual circuit switching system. Every time someone makes a "call" (a new IP/port IP/port tuple), the first packet is routed to Master Control, which decides if they get to make the call, logs the call, decides whether the call gets wiretapped or filtered, and chooses the priority given to the call. All the routers involved are then issued instructions from Master Control on how to route that call.
(Yeah, they don't use the term "call". But that's what it is, really.) Goodbye, "net neutrality". Goodbye, flat rate billing. Goodbye, distributed control. This puts everything you do on the Internet under central control and makes it billable.
Isn't there some way they could create pCells around each device, so nobody would interfere with anyone else?
The next question is, could that be done in each individual's router(s), or does it require the collective network described here?
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Love how this article gives so much detail. It was easy to form an opinion on the usefulness of... this... thing... whatever it is.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Ethanol-fueled, is that you? :)
Typically in a housing unit (like an apartment) the owners would do this. There have been some that started to do this, offer network services to their residents for free or for a premium. This saves them money by not having different cable installers trampling over the last cable installer (which are all from the same company off course because you don't have much choice) and damaging existing infrastructure, it also saves them complaints from one system interfering with the other and less effort adhering to laws that allow everyone to have their own dish/cable/phone line of choice.
One of the apartment complexes I lived in installed a 100/20 Mbps line with a contracted really large dish for TV and distributed phone, internet and tv to all units for $20/month. TWC could suck it as the majority of the residents stepped over.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com