D-Link Unveils High-Speed Wireless Line

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,108268,tk,dn122402X,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article...n122402X,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div>802.11g is coming soon, and D-Link is at the forefront of the technology. I'm not convinced adoption of 802.11g will be as quick as 802.11b though - unless you're in a multi-user environment, it's very difficult to saturate 11 Mbps of bandwidth (although on those big multi-gig transfers more speed would certainly be welcome). I swapped out my D-Link wireless networking gear with Microsoft networking hardware this weekend, and I'm thrilled with the results. More on that later. Back to the article:<br /><br />"Users of IEEE 802.11b wireless LANs who want higher speed over the same radio spectrum will soon have a chance to jump toward the next generation: D-Link Systems has announced a hardware client and access point designed from a draft of the coming 802.11g specification. The new standard is designed to offer a maximum 54-megabits-per-second carrying capacity on the same radio spectrum used for 802.11b. The AirPlus Xtreme G line will use a dual-mode system so users can integrate the new products with existing 802.11b networks, which deliver up to 11 mbps, according to D-Link. <br /> <br />The 802.11g standard is expected to be completed in March. Products are already shipping that deliver up to 54 mbps using another relatively new standard, 802.11a. However, they use a different part of the radio spectrum (around 5 GHz) and require a typically more expensive dual-band radio if combined with 802.11b."

[T-Will]

Will this help with the range or will it be about the same range as 802.11b?

[KyleC]

The market will probably slow down with the introduction of this now technology. With Wi-Fi, everyone knew that one Wi-Fi product was compatable with another. Now other companies are thinking that they can make it better/faster/cheaper THEIR WAY and completely ignore compatability (I'm talking about 802.11a) and now there is a new standard (802.11g) which is backwards compatable with Wi-Fi (802.11b). While this helps, you can't use your 802.11g card in Starbucks per se because they use the traditional 802.11b network. Throw a dilapidated Bluetooth into the mess and watch wireless revinue slide for the next five years.

EDIT:
...Security improvements fall under the 802.11i working group...

AAAH! Now I have 4 letter variations of 802.11 in my head alonw with Bluetooth, IR, GSM/GPRS, CDMA, TDMA, GPS... sorry GPS sort of slipped in there... the point is there are too many wireless "standards" and we need to find 2 or 3 that do what we need them to do, well.

[Paragon]

Not quite on topic

On the Microsoft networking gear...I'll be waiting to here how it goes for you. I just bought their MN500 wireless base. I've never had wireless before. So I'm figuring the switch over may be eventful....for a woodworker. :-) If you hear of a large nuke type explosion in the London area you'll know it didn't go well. :-)

Dave

[grohl]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, 802.11g cards should be compatible with 802.11b access points, right?

[chris234]

Correct, you should be able to use 11b clients with an 11g infrastructure.

Also, a comment on an earlier message. 802.11a, from what I've seen so far, seems to have reasonable interoperability and doesn't suffer from the "companies doing it their own way" problem. I've tried cards from Cisco, Proxim/Orinoco, Intel, and some other brand I forget at the moment :? on an Orinoco infrastructure and haven't had problems.

[spg]

Well I don't exactly agree with everyone. Sure it is great to have compatibility between new and old technologies, but you can't always have that. If every new technology had to be able to be used directly with the old technology, I don't think we would get very far. Inventors couldn't think "out-side-the-box", no new ways of accomplishing the task would be developed. Sure there will be alot of things that are compatible, but my point is that not everything can be.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Well 802.11g SHOULD be more secure than 802.11b as the WEP encryption has been redone, making it more secure. Having a secure network always helps. :)

[chris234]

There isn't any difference in security between a, b, and g. Security improvements fall under the 802.11i working group, and will apply to a, b, and g.

[st63z]

Even more off topic, what's the best strategy for a functioning wireless-equipped home? I mean, I'm looking to buy a new multi-handset cordless phone system. 900MHz, 2.4GHz, or new 5.8GHz phones (all FHSS) -- recommendation for least interference, best performance, practical availability? Assuming that you also want to keep your options open for 802.11a, b, and g, as well as Bluetooth. Also note that those Sennheiser wireless headphones, some of those cordless keyboards/mice, etc, use 900MHz...

Specifically, do the new 5.8GHz phones interfere w/ 802.11a's OFDM? Do the two even overlap in frequencies (if I recall there are like 3 distinct ISM sub-bands available in the 5GHz range?), or have they learned from the 2.4GHz interference issues?

In terms of performance, I don't suppose the 5.8GHz phones have as much range as the 2.4GHz, all else being equal. But the former probably uses more power? Plus I haven't yet seen a good multi-line phone system model...

OTOH you can't really find a good state-of-the-art 900MHz phone system anymore either. And older models tend to have less performance, etc. Except for those EnGenius 900MHz industrial phones (I still don't get how they could get away broadcasting that much power/range)...

[Dave Conger]

Correct, you should be able to use 11b clients with an 11g infrastructure.

I was reading some stuff from NetGear and it was saying that b+ isn't compatible with g. I realize b+ isn't a standard, but that seems kind of odd considering b+ is compatible with b, and b with g.

[st63z]

You mean that 22mbps thing? Yeah it shouldn't be compatible w/ g (fallback to standard 11mbps b) I imagine...

IIRC the former uses TI's modulation scheme (I forget, something like PPK or P-something) so different from g's OFDM. But in actual products both should be able to fall back to b's DSSS/FHSS (definitely the former, and I forget if required for g too or not).

Hmm, why my meandering explanations tend to get so convoluted?

[Jonathon Watkins]

There isn't any difference in security between a, b, and g. Security improvements fall under the 802.11i working group, and will apply to a, b, and g.

Fair point about 802.11i - but I had thought I had read somewhere that 802.11g would have WPA built in. - Can't find where I read it though.

Here's a Register story giving more details of 802.11i: Wi-Fi Alliance tries again on wireless security. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/27888.html

WPA is based on a subset of features found in the 802.11i Robust Security Network amendment to the existing wireless LAN standard.

802.11i is not expected to be ratified till the back end of next year and the industry can't afford to wait that long, Kirk Alchorne, European director at the Wi-Fi Alliance and an access product manager at Nokia, told us.

And another overview article: WLAN security is still work in progress.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/28373.html