|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IEEE 802.11 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 365 days may be archived by.|
Agreed. There is more information on the new IEEE 802.11ae-2012 standard on the IEEE website: https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/802.11ae-2012.html 10:38, 7 May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
Colleagues. I have reviewed the new 802.11-2012 standard (IEEE released it to the 'GET' program just yesterday). There are so many new additions (and changes), that I believe it deserves it's own article -- so I created an initial draft. If you care to review and/or expand upon it, please examine it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/IEEE_802.11-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.j.richardson (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
In Standard and amendments you find a lot of 802.11 protocols, in section Protocols only the main protocols a,b,g,n and new for me 802.11-2007. I like the table in Protocols, so is it possible to merge this two sections?18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC) br
- I don't understand why this very important start on an article is being rejected by Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia no longer allow stubs? If so that seems like a very bad move by Wikipedia. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Article does not meet Wiki standards
Wireless N redirects here. About.com says: "Answer: Wireless N is a name for hardware gadgets that support 802.11n Wi-Fi wireless networking."
This article seems too technical and full of jargon, which is another way of saying it's poorly written. Wiki guidelines require that articles be accessible to the average user (IMO; at least in the lead section). Duh. It describes a bunch of rules but does not explain what the hardware gadgets do, what such a device is called, what purpose these devices serve, etc. The Big Picture. Suggest looking at some other sources such as perhaps: What Is Wireless N? or youtube's Wireless G vs N explained for suggestions to better explanations. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section).
Please remember that a list of facts is not an explanation. A list of parts does not describe a car nor any other system. Thanks.
--22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford
- This article covers the facts in much more details than the blather in sales brochures. As a reasonably educated person I generally prefer details to oversimplification. It explains not only Wireless a, b, g, n and ac, but also the lesser known letters used, as well as the bigger picture and some issues that real world people have to deal with to use the related "gadgets". Please keep this article as a detailed overview of the whole 802.11 standard family, don't dumb it down to beautifully written sweet nonsense. If I look up Elephants I also expect something much more detailed and precise than "huge gray animal with very long nose that it can move like an arm and two very long white teeth". Jbohmdk (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
More confusion in the paragraphs about channel separation
The 3 paragraphs about channel separation, which begins with "Confusion often arises..." seem to be confused themselves. Most notably I see two issues in the current text, but am not sure how to fix it, as I do not know the facts well enough. The two issues are:
- There is an unfortunate conflation of the rules for assigning channels to multiple (cooperating, roaming) access points (cells) of a single large network/SSID and the (different) rules for assigning channels to multiple networks/SSIDs where the access points don't talk to each other, but the (human) owners try to minimize mutual interference. Similarly, there is some conflation between what happens if you line up all the conflicting access points on a small table in the middle of the house and what happens when each access point is in a different home/office in a large crowded building. The Villegas source discusses these distinctions, but with little detail.
- A Cisco article about the inadvisability of using 15MHz channel separation for multi-cell networks in the US 11-channel regdomain is used as the sole source for a claim that 20MHz channel separation is problematic in the EU 13-channel regdomain, while a research article that used spectrum analyzers to scientifically investigate how much channel separation is really needed is used as the sole source for a claim that such high end equipment is needed to decide if 20MHz separation is good enough for each real world situation. That badly sourced paragraph contains important information which should be given (after adjusting for factual correctness), so it cannot simply be deleted, but it needs to be fact checked then the facts need to be properly sourced. Jbohmdk (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Need definition for UDP
In the section Common Misunderstandings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#Common_misunderstandings_about_achievable_throughput), the term UDP is used a few times yet never defined. Looking up the WP article on UDP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol) gives no understanding.
Can someone with detailed knowledge please address this issue?
- The definition of UDP here is, indeed, an initialism for User Datagram Protocol. Presumably what you need is an explanation of something here; what needs to be explained? Guy Harris (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The article appears to have omitted important information relating to how MAC Addresses appear in the 802.11 frame "An 802.11 frame can have up to four address fields. Each field can carry a MAC address. Address 1 is the receiver, Address 2 is the transmitter, Address 3 is used for filtering purposes by the receiver."
From my limited knowledge of the 802.11 standard the above address representations are usually correct, however if the message is being transmitted over a Distributed system (as defined in the ToDS and FromDS bits of the Frame Control field), the above statement is incorrect. This explains why the article shows four address fields but only explains three, as the forth field is used to represent the source of transmission only when the ToDS/FromDS fields are set.
The following site explains this, and is frequently referenced by students taking their Cisco certification so it would appear reliable .
I apologise in advance if any part of raising this is not up-to the wiki standards, I rarely edit on Wikipedia and therefore have tried my best to raise this in a constructive manner. I currently do not have the time to correct this section myself and as you can probably tell I am not brilliant at using the Wiki markup, this may change in the near future if I manage to get a day off work.
Let me know if you need anything else from me.