If I understood well, you say time slots to be distributed by the Access Point to each node - yes I think that's what WiMAX states. For multiple WiMAX networks sharing must be on the frequency band level or coping with the interference.
But notice, this a huge difference from WIFI, which is more or less like half-duplex ethernet and even in AP mode can't enforce an SLA.
not really, WiMAX also runs on unlicensed spectrum - check 802.16a
the main difference is the MAC layer, WiMAX was targetted to metro access network and it doesn't use the shared medium approach as 802.11 (CSMA/CA), it uses a time slot MAC that enables QoS.
The gear will be expensive - yes, comparing to WIFI, not really compared to UMTS/WCDMA. And if you think that some of the interested will be cellphone operators which already have the antenna poles and the backbone network, it might be an interesting investment, allowing much higher bandwiths for a fraction of the cost.
802.16a includes NLOS and, as you known, it also allows the use of MIMO systems, advanced coding techniques and smart antennas which can boost NLOS coverage - manufacturers expect NLOS coverage up to 5km from the BS. And some of these techniques are easier/cheaper to implement in WiMAX which is OFDMA than in WCDMA OFDM is also much less subject to intersimbolic interference than CDMA and probably this is why there are several trials to provide wideband to trains using WiMAX as an uplink to the in-train WIFI network.
WiMAX spectral effiency will be around 3-4 Mbps/Hz, but the way the bands are used is very flexible, especially with subchanneling, you can have subchannels starting from 1.75 MHz bands. Band reuse migh be very efficient with smart antennas and beam-forming/steering techniques.
You won't really have to compete with WIFI: WiMAX can function as an acess network to WIFI hotspots (instead of relaying in wired uplinks). WIFI can't really be used for broadband access such as DSL, as it has no QoS services you can't make a SLA with it.
With cable it won't be able to compete, but with DSL I think it has a chance, especially in countries where loop unbundling is problematic.
Intel selling WiMAX chipsets migh be a hell of a boost to WiMAX, just remember all the hype with Centrinos and WIFI. If you tell someone "use WiMAX, it's really cool" they'll ask you how to? it'll sure make a difference if you send them to buy a new card or if you just tell them that the laptop they've just bought is the only thing they need.
I think will be able to do your on own network with standard gear, especially because 802.16a has specs for unlicensed band operation (vb. 5 GHz), ways to avoid interference and band overlapping between differente WiMAX networks and mesh network support.
Don't known about the equipment price tag, though.
Re:Mass media distribution
on
The Next Net
·
· Score: 1
when you talk about ipv6 please go a bit deeper than just the big address space, think in:
- security standard for IP, just think how good it would be if DNS was authenticated...
- better routing using hierarchical network addresses and flow tagging (for your dear mass media distribution)
- mobility support not to mention support to bring next gen cellular networks to IP
- autoconfiguration of network interfaces with addresses, gateways, etc much better than current DHCP or even better with DHCPv6
- anycast - having only one address for all the world's DNS servers
- and for those who think nobody needs so many addresses just think in tiny sensor networks
and NAT is just what is holding back the media on the net, for every new protocol you need (RSVP, SIP) you need to figure out a cumbersome way of getting through the stupid NAT devices. NAT is no security, if you need to let something in (even through port 80) you will be exposed to trouble anyway.
i guess someone was talking about badly designed protocols - RSVP and SIP - what's the concept of well designed protocols - hammer your way through port 80 so that you can get through NAT?
Slashdot Mirror
If I understood well, you say time slots to be distributed by the Access Point to each node - yes I think that's what WiMAX states.
For multiple WiMAX networks sharing must be on the frequency band level or coping with the interference.
But notice, this a huge difference from WIFI, which is more or less like half-duplex ethernet and even in AP mode can't enforce an SLA.
not really, WiMAX also runs on unlicensed spectrum - check 802.16a
the main difference is the MAC layer, WiMAX was targetted to metro access network and it doesn't use the shared medium approach as 802.11 (CSMA/CA), it uses a time slot MAC that enables QoS.
The gear will be expensive - yes, comparing to WIFI, not really compared to UMTS/WCDMA. And if you think that some of the interested will be cellphone operators which already have the antenna poles and the backbone network, it might be an interesting investment, allowing much higher bandwiths for a fraction of the cost.
802.16a includes NLOS and, as you known, it also allows the use of MIMO systems, advanced coding techniques and smart antennas which can boost NLOS coverage - manufacturers expect NLOS coverage up to 5km from the BS.
And some of these techniques are easier/cheaper to implement in WiMAX which is OFDMA than in WCDMA
OFDM is also much less subject to intersimbolic interference than CDMA and probably this is why there are several trials to provide wideband to trains using WiMAX as an uplink to the in-train WIFI network.
WiMAX spectral effiency will be around 3-4 Mbps/Hz, but the way the bands are used is very flexible, especially with subchanneling, you can have subchannels starting from 1.75 MHz bands. Band reuse migh be very efficient with smart antennas and beam-forming/steering techniques.
You won't really have to compete with WIFI: WiMAX can function as an acess network to WIFI hotspots (instead of relaying in wired uplinks).WIFI can't really be used for broadband access such as DSL, as it has no QoS services you can't make a SLA with it.
With cable it won't be able to compete, but with DSL I think it has a chance, especially in countries where loop unbundling is problematic.
Intel selling WiMAX chipsets migh be a hell of a boost to WiMAX, just remember all the hype with Centrinos and WIFI. If you tell someone "use WiMAX, it's really cool" they'll ask you how to? it'll sure make a difference if you send them to buy a new card or if you just tell them that the laptop they've just bought is the only thing they need.
I think will be able to do your on own network with standard gear, especially because 802.16a has specs for unlicensed band operation (vb. 5 GHz), ways to avoid interference and band overlapping between differente WiMAX networks and mesh network support. Don't known about the equipment price tag, though.
and another one: MPLampS
RFC 3251 - Electricity over IP
when you talk about ipv6 please go a bit deeper than just the big address space, think in: - security standard for IP, just think how good it would be if DNS was authenticated... - better routing using hierarchical network addresses and flow tagging (for your dear mass media distribution) - mobility support not to mention support to bring next gen cellular networks to IP - autoconfiguration of network interfaces with addresses, gateways, etc much better than current DHCP or even better with DHCPv6 - anycast - having only one address for all the world's DNS servers - and for those who think nobody needs so many addresses just think in tiny sensor networks and NAT is just what is holding back the media on the net, for every new protocol you need (RSVP, SIP) you need to figure out a cumbersome way of getting through the stupid NAT devices. NAT is no security, if you need to let something in (even through port 80) you will be exposed to trouble anyway. i guess someone was talking about badly designed protocols - RSVP and SIP - what's the concept of well designed protocols - hammer your way through port 80 so that you can get through NAT?