Talk:IEEE 802.11/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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).

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).

Channel frequencies

I think it might be worthwhile to list the actual frequencies used by the various wireless standards. To the best of my knowledge, the B/G channel frequencies (in GHz) are: 1 = 2.412; 2 = 2.417; 3 = 2.422; 4 = 2.427; 5 = 2.432; 6 = 2.437; 7 = 2.442; 8 = 2.447; 9 = 2.452; 10 = 2.457; and 11 = 2.462. And the A channel frequencies (in GHz) are: 36 = 5.18; 40 = 5.20; 44 = 5.22; 48 = 5.24; 52 = 5.26; 56 = 5.28; 60 = 5.30; and 64 = 5.32. (I verified these frequencies by looking at the wireless setup GUI for my Linksys WRT55AG (802.11a/b/g). Richwales 06:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Links with Advertising

In case anyone is interested, I just reverted an edit that added a link: 802.11n Real World Performance. It aggregates links to 3 articles, that relate to 11n performance, fine, but it's simply constructed, and looks like it was done mostly to expose 3 GoogleAds as well. To the poster: If you are really interested in contributing to the quality of the entry, I invite you to please re-post each of the three referenced articles directly, not redirecting them through your little cash-collection page.--WCat 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

802.11n range is incorrect

How can 802.11g have a greater range than 802.11n? please edit... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.185.237 (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2007 (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)

Lucent aquired the WaveLAN product from DEC who aquired it from a company in Norway I believe. The WaveLAN product Dates back to around 1991 or 1992 at the same time Proxim was making a push with their FHSS product. Back then it was a 1-2Mb radio and they listed for $800.00. Lucent made many improvements and paved the way for DSSS technology with things like round robin which allowed for all users within a cell to get access regardless of their distance/signal strength to the AP. Lucent later renamed the product as Orinoco. When Lucent spun off Avaya to handle the Enterprise communications and data products they also spun off Agere about 6 months later. Agere handled the Orinoco product as they were making the chip sets, a bad decision but that is what happened. A couple of years later Agere sold the Orinoco product to Proxim where you can still buy the product today under the same name. DDixon ex-Lucent/Avaya 65.34.7.132 04:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OFDM system comparison table

Feel free to add 802.11a and g columns to the OFDM#OFDM system comparison table. Mange01 11:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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, 25 July 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, 16 September 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, 1 October 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, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Yes, I agree that this section is misleading.- AFAIK, 802.11a was ratified at the same time, or just prior to 802.11b, but was more expensive to manufacture, thus 802.11b products were first to market, and cost less, and were more common. I tried to add some context for this, and add more information on 802.11a, since it was skipped over in the first paragraph.--Boscobiscotti 04:04, 27 July 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)

agreed this makes good sense. --Boscobiscotti 04:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Data link layer

IEEE 802.11 specifies data link layer protocol. There is no data about it, in article. This mostly would be frame structure and CA method. -Yyy 09:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

IEEE 802.11 only specifies the MAC layer of the DLL. 802.1 specifies the logical parameters and structure. This is what binds the 802.x family together. Goodput 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That was what I meant. Frame structure is a part of MAC layer (and is lacking in article). I do not know, where channel access method fits in, exactly (it also is lacking, in article). -Yyy 06:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's IEEE 802.11m gone

I did a band-aid fix to the .11m page last while amending IEEE 802.11y and it appears that someone has taken some of that text, appended to IEEE 802.11 under 802.11-2007 and deleted the .11m page. .11m is still very much alive, and the page should not have been deleted. The first meeting of 802.11mb was held in San Fransisco 2 weeks ago. Goodput 21:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I had moved it before thinking about the haphazardness of IEEE 802.11. Page restored. -- KelleyCook 21:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

802.11y Outdoor Range

The "Summary" table lists an anticipated outdoor range of 5000 ft. for future 802.11y-compliant devices. What is the source for this information?20.137.52.231 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

802.11 vs. WiFi

This article claims that there are differences between what IEEE has approved as part of 802.11 and what the Wi-Fi Alliance has approved. No sources are cited for this claim, and specific differences are cited neither in this article nor in Wi-Fi Technical Information. Specific referenced examples are needed for verification and elucidation. -- Beland 12:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Next 802.11

• What is the next version in 802.11? Is 802.11n the lateast version? JSK 13:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Page reorg proposal

I've been trying to sort out this IEEE 802.11*/Wi-Fi mish-mash. I've now got a new Category:IEEE 802.11 into which I've put all the technical pages. One thing that stands out is that the expertise given to the "lesser" 802.11 pages (say IEEE 802.11y ) is significantly better than what is present on the main IEEE 802.11 page. It would be nice if the same level of detail was given to the "major" ones 802.11[abgn] and even the legacy mode. Therefore I was thinking of breaking up the page into its components and have each main protocol be its own page instead of their current redirect back to 802.11. Then we could just use IEEE 802.11 be the main overall page describing the general 802.11 process and protocols and the general speed/frequency choices, WiFi could still cover the fuzzy non-technical stuff such as Coffee Shop browsing. What do people think? -- KelleyCook 16:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. IEEE 802.11 could list all the standards, but have "Main article" pointers to the pages for the particular standards. Presumably Wi-Fi Technical Information would its content scattered amongst IEEE 802.11 and the pages for the standards (and perhaps new pages as appropriate), and get turned into a link to IEEE 802.11? Guy Harris 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A major shortcoming of IEEE 802.11 is the limited coverage of .11-2007. From the IEEE 802's prospective, .11a-i and .11j no longer exist. Also .11-2007 is far more than just a roll-up; neither .11y nor .11n could have been built without the changes made in it.

Kelley, I take issue with with your assessment of lessor vs. major. There is talk of 802.11y becoming a candidate technology for IMT-Advanced, and could end up in every cell phone in the world; also, without ECSA, .11n would not have access to the 5GHz spectrum. Finally the extended range facility afforded by a standardized mechanism to alter the guard interval duration is at least as significant as MIMO for outdoor Wi-Fi. .11y is major. It just isn't part of the WiFi Alliance hype machine yet. ;7) Goodput 20:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, they were a poor choice of words. I was speaking only of current popularity, not overall importance. -- KelleyCook 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've now started this. New Page at IEEE 802.11 (legacy mode) which probably needs updating. I'll get around to moving the a, b, g, and n admendments, but if someone wants to go before me, feel free. -- KelleyCook 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

IEEE 802.11n

If this could be cited, nothing actually supports it... eth01 11:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Addressing ?

This page says nothing about frame addressing (MAC frames) etc. It is as if 802.11 was only a specification of frequency ranges and bandwidths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.193.6 (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

802.11n is out!!!

I have a linksys WRT300N and it uses 802.11n draft 2.

This artical needs some big edting!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.212.109 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

802.11n is not out.

Members of the Wi-Fi alliance have irresponsibly begun to release hardware based on 802.11n drafts before the completion of the standard; this is (generally, albeit not specifically) mentioned in the introductory statements for the article. That is why your Linksys WRT300N uses 802.11n draft 2 instead of 802.11n. Such hardware may or may not be compatible with the final specification.

In the future, don't make such emphatic statements regarding things you don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.197.163 (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Page Frames

There doesn't seem to be anything substantial on page frames here, or on any part of wiki that I can find. If anyone has extensive knowledge on this it would be a great addition to the article. I don't feel my knowledge is adequate at this time. X-Destruction (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

802.11 with interference?

Question: what happens when 802.11 devices have to negotiate down to accommodate interference? I.E., when device A and WAP A have to negotiate their speed down to talk to each other is there any change in the speed with which device B and WAP A will use to talk to each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.173.163 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

YES. Wireless is a shared spectrum, all clients associated to an access point are effected by other client's connection speed as they need to wait for slower clients to finish their transmissions. Although the transmission speed between device B and WAP A will not slow down, the amount of time available for the device and WAP to transmit data will be diminished slowing down the overall data rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eklauber (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

802.11n draft adopted

The 802.11n draft was adopted in January, 2009. See http://www.ieee802.org/11/Reports/tgn_update.htm for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene Felch (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

True its gone to a sponsor ballot and this is noted at the 802.11n page, but this probably doesn't mean what you seem to imply it means. A sponsor ballot means that the Task Group n has deemed it sufficient, so now goes to a wider audience where the whole 802.11 working group is able to comment on the validity of the proposal again. When the whole group agrees its good, it possibly goes to the 802 committee and then goes to the IEEE revcom board where they will approve it and publish it. So yes most of the infighting should be over, but the final spec won't show up for another year. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically correct, but drafts often never make it through the final stages of approval process or only years later for lack of urgency and wordsmithing. For industry purposes, committee approve is sufficient unless a notable popular ground swell against the committee exists. Barring such a ground swell movement (none for 802.11n), significant technical change is extremely unlikely. If such technical changes occur they are often handled as optional secondary specs or amendments years down the road with the original technical proposal still standing as can be seen in the basic Ethernet frame specification. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bandwidth of 802.11n

The article says that 802.11n uses four 40-MHz channels, implying that a total of 160 MHz is used.

In reality I believe these are four MIMO channels, obtained by using 4 antennas on each end of the link, but all tuned to the same 40 MHz frequency channel.

Alan Bloom (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Bluetooth devices, while operating in the same band, in theory do not interfere with 802.11b/g ...."

This is not precisely true, though it probably will do for most user's practical purposes. Spread spectrum methods don't eliminate interference, they randomize it. Active avoidance methods, such as "water filling" distributed frequency use, would give lower noise levels. Since 802.11 is spread spectrum, it randomizes microwave oven interference also.

Spread spectrum methods were conceived to deal with hostile interference, but work so well that they are used also for potentially cooperative interference. For cooperative interference, a dynamic frequency allocation standard would be the optimal method. Water filling, which is optimal for passive interference, is known also to work well for cooperative interference because the devices avoid each other's frequencies.

Heh I think you meant spread spectrum works so well it is often used INSTEAD of potential cooperative interference methods.

Obviously spread spectrum helps to avoid additional patent royalties and hardware costs as well as overhead and minor uncertainties of cooperative interference methods. Cooperative methods rely on all devices being able of detection, negotiation, common baseline rules for allocation, and fairly stable useage -- or exact identification of usage by any devices unable to coooperate. Lots of bursty traffic flagged as high priority may dramatically increase overhead for some cooperative methods as renegotiation occurs.69.23.124.142 (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What is this "Nomenclature of Wireless Application Software Platform"?

I don't see how this is related to the IEEE 802.11 standard. Is this a product from vendor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 802geek (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WEP definition

I need to add some information to the overall 802.11 series and the resulting technologies associated to it to help guide the discussion; for a point of reference to help illustrate a generality: I have noticed information regarding the DEFINATION of WEP on another page which describes the term as "Wired Equivelant Privacy" and in conflict with the term "Wireless Encryption Protocol"; the later term is more a coined marketing term then the technical accurate TERM for WEP.

In general, there are rules to assigning defined meanings to Acronyms especially associated to military use for short form, this has been later adopted in the engineering principals for easy short-form term usages and commonly agreed upon by developers and engineers, to shorten discussions and subsequently documentation and rules associated to how to properly describe a technical object as an Acronym.

One of the principal rules to Acronym assignments within the "tehcnical community" is that the Acronym describes the object in question by LCD (Lowest Common Denominators)adjectives of the object.

In cases referring to computers such as USB (Universal Serial Bus), HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol), FTP (File Transfer Protocol) and referring to engineering standards TV (Television), RC (Radio Control), or RF (Radio Frequency) in all these cases the Acronym describes what the object is, rather then what the object does; it is more accurate to state that WEP is short form for (Wireless Encryption Protocol) rather then (Wired Equivelant Privacy) for two reasons.

First, WEP was initally developed for the military and military terms follow rules of convention.

Second, In every other case the Acronym describes the objects function in technical references; not the result of the application; therefore it is highly improbable that the WEP would be unique in its declaration.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a publicly EDITABLE encyclopedia; and there are errors. It is best for persons and peoples to look for LCD (Lowest Common Denominators) to help them establish guidelines for publications. Please keep in mind you are not the AUTHORS of reality, rather the Authors of supported information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewEgan (talk • contribs) 04:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We welcome your contributions. However before you attempt to change something like the definition of WEP, please read WP:No original research. This would have to be sourced by a primary reference and I think you are going to be hard pressed to find a more authoritative source than the IEEE and Wi-Fi Alliance. -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)