Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wi-Fi Alliance's Wi-Fi EasyMesh Certification Aims To Standardize Mesh Networks (pcworld.com)

Posted by msmash on from the better-connectivity dept.

The Wi-Fi Certified EasyMesh program that the Wi-Fi Alliance announced today promises to do for mesh networks what the Alliance has long done for wireless networking gear in general: Assure consumers that they can build out wireless home networks without worrying if one brand of device will be compatible with another. From a report: The emergence of mesh networking somewhat undermined that effort, because every manufacturer pursued its own path. Wi-Fi is still Wi-Fi, so you don't need to worry that your smartphone, or media streamer, or home security camera will connect to your wireless router, regardless of brand. But if you buy a Linksys Velop router today, for example, you can buy only Linksys Velop access points if you want to expand your network to cover more areas of your home later. EasyMesh promises to bring to mesh networks the same interoperability assurances that conventional routers have long offered.

30 of 39 comments (clear)

  1. This could be ubiquitous. by technosaurus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they don't screw it up with ghost patents, this could be in every vehicle, phone and IOT dohickey. Making the net more open.

    1. Re:This could be ubiquitous. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Seems like a terrible idea to make a phone a mesh node (is that what an individual piece is called?).

      Aside from the battery usage, I assume their is a space requirement for extra antennas.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:This could be ubiquitous. by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      I don't think the idea was to standardize on a single hardware vendor.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    3. Re:This could be ubiquitous. by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      If they don't screw it up with ghost patents, this could be in every vehicle, phone and IOT dohickey. Making the net more open.

      One other possible hurdle to overcome is the possible push-back from government/LEAs/TLAs as this would make slurping up and cross-indexing every domestic US message and email much harder for them. Just look at how they've come out against strong & secure data encryption, they won't like this either. It might even go so far as forcing them to get individual warrants based on probable cause, and that's unacceptable to modern US law enforcement and domestic spy agencies. No doubt they'll roll out the standard "terrists!", "drug dealers!", and "pedophiles!" memes to attempt to derail or compromise such an initiative.

      In Soviet Amerika, you protect the 4th Amendment.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:This could be ubiquitous. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      No, because this is wifi. Wifi is a NEW players in meshes, and there are already standards. Wifi with respects is radio and networking standards is mostly a catchup player in many arenas.

  2. WiFi alliance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the Alliance has long done for wireless networking gear in general: Assure consumers that they can build out wireless home networks without worrying if one brand of device will be compatible with another.

    Isn't this what the standard, i.e. IEEE, does?
    What does WiFi alliance add to the table? Why hasn't IEEE standardized this already? What am I missing?

    1. Re:WiFi alliance? by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Informative

      The standard defines the protocol and technical details. The alliance defines the legal framework that lets vendors cheaply implement the standard, without worrying about touching each others' patents, or exposing themselves to other liabilities. It also allows vendors to gain the marketable feature of a "works with other brands" logo, and the legal ability to sue others that use that logo without actually being compatible.

      In a perfect world where everyone was honest and patient and only implemented standards perfectly, business alliances wouldn't add anything. In this world, however, they add a legal and political safety net for vendors.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:WiFi alliance? by jrumney · · Score: 3, Informative

      WiFi Alliance adds interoperability. Complying with the IEEE standard does not guarantee that, as the current situation with mesh networks, and the mid-1990s wireless networking situation demonstrate. There are too many optional things for the standard to cover, so until someone makes some standard subsets with conformance tests, no two manufacturers are going to implement things the same way.

    3. Re:WiFi alliance? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They could however, join the existing alliances and standards bodies that have already formed around meshing starting two decades ago.

    4. Re:WiFi alliance? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Apart from the Wi-Fi Alliance, which other alliances and standards bodies formed around two decades ago?

    5. Re:WiFi alliance? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I know we had someone on 802.11s committee I believe, that was 15 years ago. I thought there was something before this but I'm not seeing info. There is also 802.15.4 mesh task group which started around 2003 (I think Zigbee fits on top of this?). We had been trying to do wifi meshing in 2004 before the plug was pulled, but there was no alliance. Meshing became much more common in low bandwidth fixed applications, such as smart meters and other sensors.

  3. "Mesh" is annoying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The problem is that it has become a buzzword and now every kid with a specsheet wants it, even when totally inappropriate for their network setup. Yes, it's cool tech, but no, it really does not beat the performance of a few normal APs connected with wires. So just lay that line to the attic and forget about "mesh". It's not better in normal circumstances. And when it is a good idea you need a little more knowledge than "plug and pray" to make it work properly anyway, standards or no.

    1. Re: "Mesh" is annoying. by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Your phone will not roam properly between "two APs connected with wires". It holds on for dear life to the weakest signal until it's dead.

      This isn't how things work on a mesh.

      Upgrading to the Velop system was the best investment I've made in my house in awhile.

    2. Re: "Mesh" is annoying. by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      It's mostly up to the client to disconnect unless the AP disassiociates it, forcing it to connect to another, better AP. This causes downtime. A decent AP had that basic feature a dozen years ago. Roaming depends on its background scan abilities and how far away in channel other AP'S are on. You might be on channel 1 and not need to sleep and scan to find another AP on channel 3, but you would to scan channel 11. Cheap shit does sleeping and scanning horribly. Or you can do a channel blanket thing (seamless roaming from client perspective) and reduce your overall capacity and increase complexity. Mesh is no different from client to AP, what is different is the routing protocol in mesh vs straight bridge. What's usually the difference maker is closer AP's that allow higher modulations with minimal retries vs being on edge of coverage and getting low modulation and high retries.

    3. Re: "Mesh" is annoying. by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      I had multiple different name-brand APs ( $200+ units ) set up in the configuration you're describing for years. The experience was always *horrible*.

      Mesh networks are far, far superior. The handoff is completely transparent and works flawlessly. Whats more since deploying my Velop, my bandwidth has gone up 2X due to the increased envelope.

      There is a reason that public wifi networks have used mesh for decades. This configuration is recent in the consumer space but has been in the corperate space forever.

  4. Re:In before the XKCD standards comic by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    You must be new here. All you had to do was post 927.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  5. 802.11s by enriquevagu · · Score: 2

    That's funny, because the IEEE already standardized 802.11s for mesh networking in 2012. Is this a new amendment for the same thing, or simply a certification process? The article gives no clue.

    1. Re:802.11s by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Problem is that 802.11s is pretty useless without 802.11k and 802.11r as well. Without the latter two your device is still hanging on for dear life to the weak signal of the first access point it connected to despite being on top of a different one.

      From a personally perspective 802.11s is not a good idea. WiFi bandwidth is precious enough as it is. The last thing I want is more of it being wasted on wireless backhaul. String some fricking Cat5e/Cat6 to get the WiFi point up. Heck use powerline for the backhaul if you must but a pock on you if use WiFi for the backhaul.

    2. Re: 802.11s by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Unlike some of the other mesh systems, Velop is tri-band, it uses a completely separate frequency for the backhaul network specifically so that it won't create interference. You can also backhaul with wired if you want/can.

    3. Re: 802.11s by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      We had a mesh with routing 13 years ago. It was over the head of wireless installers, it certainly will be over the head of a Linksys user. All you had to do was give them unique node ID's and it would auto IP everything. Mesh's time is over now that beamforming and multiple sending and receiving is getting better and better.

    4. Re:802.11s by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Good luck caching when most traffic is encrypted per session and requires it to be signed. One cannot transparently cache with HTTPS without a self-signed CA.

  6. Do I have to "agree to terms"? by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The single most annoying issue with WiFi providers today is the need to "Accept the Terms" and/or acknowledge their greatness (and generosity) before the WiFi actually works. From Amtrak, to college-provided networks, to supermarkets, to dental offices, all seem intent on following the same awful example, which is, apparently, suggested by every lazy lawyer out there.

    Worse, the processing of these consent-pages takes up valuable time and bandwidth — instead of using the brief WiFi availability to check my e-mail, the phone wastes time (and bandwidth) downloading the fancy "Sign In" pages with multiple pictures, CSS', redirects (and even the entire jquery.js in some of them).

    Though it is not by itself a technology problem, I think, any WiFi-related "initiative", that does not address it, is a waste of time...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  7. Use your cell phone by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The single most annoying issue with WiFi providers today is the need to "Accept the Terms" and/or acknowledge their greatness (and generosity) before the WiFi actually works.

    Which is why I almost never use such systems. I've got plenty of data on my cell phone and can use it more places. Usually faster and more secure too.

    1. Re:Use your cell phone by mi · · Score: 1

      Which is why I almost never use such systems.

      And yet, only in 2015, you were rather a fan of "Municipal WiFi" — which would've combined the nonsense I describe with other niceties (like blocking anything unwholesome, and any ToS violation becoming a civil infraction).

      Good to see sanity prevailing...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Use your cell phone by mi · · Score: 2

      Ah, my apologies. In that rant you weren't arguing for "Municipal WiFi", but rather for "Municipal Fiber". Not that I think, that would make much difference to the argument, but technically I was incorrect.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  8. Wifi signal is a big problem by mea2214 · · Score: 1

    If you have to go more than one hop using a radio, it may work most of the time but there will be outages, brown outs, and rebooting equipment. No way that even works as the number of nodes reaches 10 or more. My experience has been with consumer grade access points however. YMMV

    1. Re: Wifi signal is a big problem by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      You don't want to go past 7 hops at the most, but depending on how spread out the AP's are, you could have any number. On a large scale mesh, you want an backhaul radio to see at least two other backhaul mesh radios for stability and auto route around downed nodes.

  9. Nice try by sjbe · · Score: 1

    And yet, only in 2015, you were rather a fan of "Municipal WiFi"

    Nice attempt to put words in my mouth but I've never said anything of the sort. You would see that if you bothered to follow the link you provided and actually read it. I've argued in the past that communities should have the RIGHT to install such telecom systems for their citizens if they want to, particularly in cases where the local telecom monopoly isn't providing the level of service they desire. I simply think it should be treated as a utility like water or electricity and communities should have the right to roll their own if the market isn't doing it for them.

  10. What would you suggest? by alexo · · Score: 1

    What would you suggest for seamless handoff between APs?

  11. Re: They need to fix 802.11 first by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    You don't know what you're talking about, as demonstrated by accelerometer and gyroscope thinking. This whole MIMO shit works with reflections, reflections that are constantly changing with the environment around you. What will happen is better silicon that can handle more streams and more math to do beamforming. And no, no new spectrum should be allocated for existing 802.11, there should be some new protocol based on hybrid of LTE and WiFi. There's way too much legacy overhead right now.