Talk:IEEE 802.11

802.11 standards

Is this page about 802.11 standards, or is it simply about popular devices using 802.11? There are at least 9 ratified 802.11 amendments and around at least 10 draft amendments. This article appears to have only named 4 or 5 total amendments listed. I can contribute a great deal about all of the amendments if this is the direction this article is going to take; however, I do not know if that is what is wanted. Ajwittenburg 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it should be about 802.11 standards; if people are looking for a page more oriented towards popular devices, they should look at Wi-Fi. Guy Harris 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Article title

"Wi-Fi" seems to "next big thing" (or one of them), and this is all that Wikipedia has on the subject? This article (IEEE 802.11) is a very technical discussion of a topic that has several aspects (the whole notion of a wireless home network) that are perfectly accessible to the (relatively) non-technical user.

Maybe what we should do is reserve Wi-Fi (which has more hits on Google that WiFi) for the nontechnical discussion and reserve IEEE 802.11 for description of the technical standard. --Larry Sanger

The text says "Different countries have different ideas about support, although a recent World Radiotelecommunciations Conference" and then suddenly quits. This sounds like it'd be interesting, but I don't know what was intended. Can anyone complete that sentence/thought? -- Dwheeler 09:15, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

I suppose that pragmatic use of WiFi would be a separate Wikipedia article from [IEEE 802.11]]. -- LarryW 14:35, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Expansion request

"Security" section should probably be expanded to show the recent and very serious DoS exploit that affects certain implementations of the 802.11 standard? [1] --Protactin 18:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Interference from microwave ovens/portable phones?

I know Wikipedia isn't a tech support site, but perhaps in discussion someone can elaborate on this? I'm about to set up my mom's computer for wireless, as HomePNA devices are no longer sold in most places, but between her computer and my room where the WAP will be, is a microwave oven (not DIRECTLY in-between though) and another phone in the house that utilizes wirelessness (not a cellphone, though), and am wondering if this is going to be a serious problem... --I am not good at running 06:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's possible that you'll lose some or all of the signal while the microwave oven is operating. Microwave ovens and 802.11b/g operate on the same 2.4GHz frequency. If your cordless phone uses 2.4GHz, it may interfere as well. 900Mhz and 5.8Ghz cordless phones won't disrupt WiFi. If you do experience interference from either the oven or the phone, try changing the channel your AP uses. 1, 6, and 11 are your best bets. Another option is to use 802.11a, which operates at 5GHz but has a shorter range. Rhobite 06:40, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I know this question was posted a while ago. I have recently been studying this. Most microwaves actually affect the uper portions of the band (we have looked at a lot of them) channels 6-11 in the US are the most affected. generally speaking channel 1 is fine.

remove D-Link picture

I think that this edit:

   10:53, 2005 Jan 5 Europrobe (added an image)

should be removed. The edit adds a picture of a D-Link SOHO WLAN router. I think this is inappropriate content on this Wikipedia page since it favors one product vendor over all others. Perhaps what might be better is a simple block diagram that shows the generic components that lie within every 802.11 product.

Well, yes, it does favor one vendor over all others, but I don't see this as a problem. It is a very common brand, and it has a very common look which would apply to lots of other manufacturers' equipment as well. The picture illustrates what a WLAN access point could look like, which is a valuable addition to the article. Nowhere in the caption or the article is the product endorsed in any way, but I could even remove the brand from the caption if some people would like it better that way. Maybe a more general "This is a typical SOHO WLAN Access point/router." or something like that. europrobe 09:02, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better to remove the brand name from the caption.

Stupid, keep it as it is. Then wikipedia might as well not mention the names of any airline or any car manufacturer, since one article maybe have more content than an other article, and some troll will say that thats favering one over another. Then you would have to strip the brand names off of every article to fix that problem of favering one manufacturer. But then u dont have an encyclopedia. Patcat88 16:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mention Lucent/Orinoco?

The article mentions brand names of legacy products, as well as references to Apple and Linksys. In my recollection, around 2000-2001, Lucent's Orinoco series pre-dated Apple's hardware as the first widely adopted 802.11 technology in many businesses. Is this generally true? If yes, perhaps it should be mentioned in the article. I'm not trying to advertise Lucent, just capture a bit of the history.

• Yes it should be mentioned definetly. Lucent seemed to be the first in wifi as I remember, and also the highest quality and best sensitivity for a long time. It was the Western Electric of wifi. (lol, Lucent is a decendent of Western Electric.)Patcat88 13:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

802.11a

From the page:

Different countries have different ideas about regulatory support, although a 2003 World Radiotelecommunciations Conference made it easier for use worldwide. A mid-2003 FCC decision may open more spectrum to 802.11a channels as well.

2003? Anyone have more current info? --Josh3736 03:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Editing woes

I just made a number of small edits to the main 802.11 page. Along the way I somehow (unintentionally) affected some other people's edits??? There appears to be some problem with either the wiki server or my workstation??? Can anyone suggest what might have gone wrong, and how I can fix it? My apologies to those whose edits were affected - that was NOT my intent.

802.11a and "Super G"

I suppose the article needs a mention of players in the 802.11a field (it has mention of companies producing 802.11b and 802.11g products).

Also I feel calling "Super G" "a new proprietary feature" makes it look incomplete. If "Super G" has to be mentioned, it should probably be mentioned whose proprietary feature it is.

DISCLAIMER: See my Wikipedia user page to know why the above might be POV. -- Paddu 16:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Err... another point is that "Super G" cannot be just for access points. The other end must also understand "Super G" right?

DISCLAIMER: (as above) -- Paddu 17:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Data modulation

Exactly how do 802.11 protocols modulate the actual data itself? Cburnett 15:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uh? Isn't that mentioned? DSSS, HR-DSSS, OFDM, etc. -- Paddu 20:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I said "exactly". Simply saying something uses DSSS or OFDM doesn't tell you exactly how it's used. Juicy technical details. Cburnett 20:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are these insufficient: Direct-sequence spread spectrum and Orthogonal frequency division modulation? NOTE: I'm not saying the 'pedia's coverage of 802.11 is satisfactory. I just wanted to help you locate where these things are covered. -- Paddu 17:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, knowing that it uses DSSS or OFDM doesn't say exactly how it's used. Cburnett 18:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IMO, FHSS needs to be mentioned as well, as some early 802.11 products were FHSS. -Barcode Fox

CCK

Why is the term CCK never used in the article for describing the 802.11b modulation? -- Paddu 20:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CCK <?> Cburnett 20:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CCK. -- Paddu 17:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've now added disambiguation at CCK. -- Paddu 20:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So the CCK is actually confusing, because it says that this is a variant on CDMA. However, on the CDMA page you'll see explicitly that CDMA is a multiplexing scheme, *not* a modulation scheme. 64.28.152.131 03:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)charles lee

Real world measured speeds

I have a small list of real, measured throughputs of a number of pieces of harware I maintain at eggwan.com. I think this helps make clear exactly what 11Mb/s 802.11b gets you in the real world. Of course, the numbers are very device-specific so would need to be quoted as such, but I still think they can serve as helpful guidelines. Would anyone like to see these added to the Wiki articles for either this or WiFi? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardgaywood (talk • contribs) 07:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Available channels in Spain

According to Orden CTE/630/2002 de 14 de marzo, Appendix 1, UN-85 note, frequencies from 2400 to 2483.5 MHz are available for wireless lan. This means, despite what most people think, that channels 1-13 are available, as of the rest of ETSI zone. http://www.cmt.es/busca/Serv/document/Legislacion_nacional/Basica_Telecomunicaciones/Dominio_Publico/PDF/OR-02-03-22.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.198.111.213 (talk • contribs) 09:01, September 16, 2005 (UTC)

802.11

I think page 802.11 should have only general information about protocol, and specific protocol information like 802.11a, 802.11b ... etc, all should have individual pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Msaada (talk • contribs) 02:52, October 1, 2005 (UTC)

Denomination

So what does IEEE 802.11 stand for? Hearth 22:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, was founded in 1963. In February of 1980, hence 802, The IEEE developed a set of standards. The .11 portion of these standards defines standards for wireless electronics. Most commonly refernced for Wireless ethernet.

Licensed or not?

It is a common misconception that 802.11a and g operate in an unlicensed portion of the radio frequency spectrum...unsigned comment...

So I've noticed that this licensing info needs to be corrected. Both bands that are used in 802.11 are considered unlicnesed bands WITH restrictions.

I'm prepared to modify this article to show the correct nature of these frequency bands.

E dog95 23:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this paragraph. Which part is actually misunderstood? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R6144 (talk • contribs) 03:35, December 3, 2005 (UTC)

Should a comparison or summary be added?

I just wanted to understand what all of the letters and numbers meant--how fast, which versions were compatbile with one another--because I am thinking of using Wifi. Could the detail be pushed further down the page and re-ordered? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonybrown100 (talk • contribs) 05:07, February 7, 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Pre-N

As per this AfD debate, any useful content from the article Pre-N should be merged into this article. I'm not going to merge myself, because I'm not an expert on the technology. Once all the useful content has been merged, please turn Pre-N into a redirect to this page. Thanks, bainer (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Done KelleyCook 19:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

802.11n 540 Mbps ?

Where did this value come from? Seems questionable to me.

Mike Moreton 11n adds an additional 5/6 coding, that means you increase the maximum OFDM bit rate from 54Mbps to 65Mbps.

With 40MHz channels, you get slightly more than double because the guard bands at the sides of the channel are shared over 40MHz rather than 20MHz, which takes you to 135Mbps.

But that's one stream - four streams gives you 540Mbps. If you have very good reception!

There's also a reduced gurad interval option that takes it up to 600Mbps...

802.11a and 802.11b order

It's implicit that 802.11a came "after" b because their products were released later. But this isn't clear. Is this the case? With a better understanding, I'd be happy to reword that to be clearer. I just think it's a question that anyone may have when looking at the list. Andrewski 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

ISM

Possible discussion on ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) significance; atmospheric propagation issues, why ISM was not auctioned (FCC auctions generate significant monies for the US Gov) see FCC CFR 46 sec 18 http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra/docs/3060-0905/3060-0905-05.pdf Wamnet 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Distances

In the table at the top of the Protocols section, the distances are listed as ?, 50m, 100m, 100m and 150m for legacy, a, b, g and n respectively. However, when you scroll down the page the distances are listed in the individual sections as ?, 30m (difference of 20m), 50m, 30m, 50m. I'm trying to an assignment on wireless and these conflicting details are confusing me.

Clarification anyone? RadarListener 03:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the summary table perhaps meant to say "(outside)" rather than "(inside)"? Unfortunately, even if that were the case the 802.11g article says it has slightly larger range than 802.11b but this contradicts the separate tables.

Cyanara 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the conflicting tables is really confusing and unencyclopedic. Obviously at least one of them is wrong. But which is it? --Miken2005 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Metric distances

Could we please have the distances in metric, rather than some legacy unit called 'feet', which I understand is still used in a few countries? m.e. 08:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Other 802.11 standards...

Now, i'm rather new to both wikipedia and networking, but it seems to me that all 802.11 standards are being redirected to this page. i was trying to do a lookup on 802.11q (cisco's vlan implementation) and it led me here. perhaps a note should be made that this article does not encompass all 802.11 standards. 74.119.135.215 04:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Coniferous

Does such a thing as 802.11q - or 802.11Q - exist? There's no 802.3q or 802.3Q, for example; the VLAN standard is IEEE 802.1Q, and covers both LANs such as Ethernet, where an 802.1Q tagged frame has an Ethertype of hex 8100, and LANs that always use IEEE 802.2 LLC, where an 802.1Q tagged frame has a SNAP header and an Ethertype of hex 8100. 802.11 uses 802.2 LLC. Guy Harris 07:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

your completely right, must of gotton confused. thanks.

74.119.135.215 14:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to this awful pagemove!

A new user recently renamed IEEE 802.11 to Wi-fi router, along with a number of other unhelpful page moves (many in violation of Wikipedia naming conventions). But let's look at this particular move: Kunz506 (Talk | contribs) moved IEEE 802.11 to Wi-fi router (Because its a wi-fi router!!!) 802.11 is "a wi-fi router"?! That's patent nonsense. This article isn't about "wi-fi routers"; it's about the 802.11 standard, which encompases protocols, access points, network cards, etc etc etc. This page move wasn't proposed or discussed, and I think it's really bad. I strongly object to this pagemove and hope that somebody will revert it and mentor this user on proper use of the pagemove function!!! 4.89.247.119 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved it back, and created Wi-Fi router and Wi-fi router pages, which currently link to Router, in the hopes that it'll block future bogus moves (this isn't the first time somebody decided to rename this to "Wi-Fi router", perhaps because there's already a Wi-Fi page and they can't just rename it to that). Guy Harris 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the history for this article - this isn't the first time it has been moved to Wi-fi router. I'm going to protect it against page moves; any future move will need to be discussed here. Mindmatrix 14:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And just a few days after it becomes unprotected, Kunz506 moves the page again. I second the parent post; this user needs correction. If this continues to happen, perhaps we should consider a longer term of protection for this page. 140.160.141.162 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the move again, and I've left a message for that user. Mindmatrix 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Range numbers

I think instead of the current range (indoor)/range (outdoor). We should put two numbers for range (for max speed/overall)

My reasoning is that the numbers b,g,n numbers are consistently getting changed by those who think they know better. Of course actual range depends on numerous factors. Furthermore 802.11g does work to over 150m as long as you are comfortable with ~1Mbs speed. But for those of us who are trying to place receivers for 54Mbs data rate, care more about the ~30m that was the target of the 802.11g committee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KelleyCook (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Alright, I'm tired of hearing this nonsense on every wireless related forum I read. 802.11a/b/g has no strict limitation of distance/throughput. Its limited by three factors:

• Recieved signal power
• Signal quality
• the ACK timeout setting

Power 'loss' occurs naturally in air, generally speaking every doubling in distance between radios you will see approximately 6 dB of signal loss. Generally speaking, everything other than air causes more loss than the air itself. Metal (including thermal insulation foil), brick, drywall, wood, glass, etc, all have more RF loss than just clear open air. This loss will either occur due to diffraction (see the next paragraph for more on this) of the signal, or actual absorption.

Signal quality issues come in two flavors:

• Multipath interference which can be avoided by maintaining a good fresnel zone
• Outside interference (cordless phones/microwave ovens/etc - well covered by the original article)

Then theres the most important issue of all - ACK timeout. Basically this setting controls exactly how long one radio waits for the other side to acknowledge its packets. Most consumer 802.11a/b/g gear is set to 1-2km from the factory and is not adjustable by the user. Good equipment generally has an adjustable scale, allowing "standards compliant" links up to about 65km (I have no documentation saying the standard is limited to this length, its just most gear won't allow ACK settings much farther than this). Beyond that you have to move to an ackless protocol ("ad-hoc demo" mode seems popular) or something more proprietary (Mikrotik nStreme is one example).

I've seen a couple consumer APs that have the ACK timeout set so small (and non-adjustable) that any distances over 10m start seeing significant performance degradation. I'd rather not say the product maker's name, but they have the nickname "Dinkylink" around my office.

For reference, I have 802.11g PTMP APs with clients as far as 12 miles away that can sustain >20mbit actual real-world data throughput. All thats required is good signal, a clear view, and decent software. Yes, the gear is FCC Part 15 compliant and features an FCC ID # for Part 15 use with the antennas I'm using. No amplifiers!

So with all this said, what exactly does the "original intentions" of 802.11g have to do with real-world network planning and implementation, especially 3 years later. The last 3 years worth of radio and software innovation that has been able to gain significantly better performance from the original 802.11g standard when it comes to receive sensitivity, transmit amplifier stability and near-channel/on-channel interference.

--Jacobsuter 04:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

ASUS guaranteed interoperability link

For the references, I thought a link straight to the source would be better than a news article: http://event.asus.com/2006/wireless/pren/

I tried editing the page myself but was unsuccessful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.61.132 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Non-standard 802.11 extensions and equipment

This article is about the 802.11 standard, not WiFi equipment that works using propeitary and unratified extensions.

As more and more equipment is coming out with "preN" capabilities, I propose moving these two sections to a new article entitled something like "Non-standard 802.11 equipment" or "802.11 pre-n equipment" or "802.11 extensions". -- KelleyCook 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mixed systems

I'd like an expert to add a section about mixing systems types. For example, I have read that you cannot, say, mix b and g on the same network -- everything will fall back to b. Is that correct? Jmatxx 23:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Phandel 08:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. The performance may resemble that of a b-only system, but individual stations will still be trasmitting g-protocol packets, if they support g and the access point supports and is configured for g. - Steve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.50.203.2 (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC).