Talk:Wireless LAN/Archives/2013

WiFi and Wireless LAN need to be combined?

It seems that WiFi and Wireless LAN are used interchangebly, with WiFi more common in the US, and WLAN in Europe. If that's true, two pages need to be combined, or at least clearly cross-referenced. Fdavis99 02:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have a European wi-fi device in front of me which refers to wi-fi networks entirely as WLAN networks. Wikipedia's definition of WLAN as directly connecting two computers wirelessly doesn't apply, because this device connects to a router with no second computer at all. Even if this is an incorrect use of WLAN, there ought to be a note mentioning this alternative definition of WLAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.46.247 (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

At least in theory, a wireless LAN needn't be based on IEEE 802.11 and thus needn't be a Wi-Fi LAN (and, in fact, Proxim Wireless and possibly other companies had pre-802.11 wireless LANs). However, that might still mean that Wi-Fi could be merged into Wireless LAN, with an indication that modern wireless LANs are 802.11-based and are thus Wi-Fi networks. Guy Harris (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to point your interest to the discussion page of Wi-Fi where a similar conversation has started. click here to see the other thread 93.128.8.52 (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer to Peer and Ad Hoc

The reference that indicates Peer to Peer communications is the same as AdHoc I believe is misleading. Peer to Peer allows all the nodes in the network to address one another directly without having to go through a single node for all communications. AdHoc is the ability for mobile nodes to enter and leave the network seamlessly. These are two different concepts and are unrelated. The graphic combining them I believe should be modified.

Ad-Hoc and Peer-to-Peer are actually one in the same. The term Ad-Hoc in networking specifically refers to the fact that there is no router involved in the connection... also called "Peer-to-Peer". So the reference on the page is actually correct. Hope this helps! B2bomber81 05:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

from my point the term peer-to-peer should not be used with network technologies as peer-to-peer typically is used to identify client-to-client services and that is not restricted to distance or intermediate resources (e.g. can be direct, via the access point, or even via the internet).

85.124.36.222 11:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)gf

ad-hoc actually is much more than simply direct connections between mobile clients. In ad-hoc networks every mobile unit is used as relay station, i.e. becomes a router. An ad-hoc network therefore does not require a dedicated access-point an the area is actually defined by the availability of relay stations, i.e. the availability of cascaded mobile units that can be used to bridge the distance between two clients. In Europe ad-hoc is not released as every client potentially could monitor the tresspassing traffic. Thus direct connections get routed via the access points also, and thus in Europe a WLAN does not work without at least one access point in reach.

85.124.36.222 11:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)gf

Not sure exactly what you mean about "In Europe ad-hoc is not released", but I'm in Europe and I can pick up several ad hoc networks from where I'm sitting. Scottwh 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

802.11a and 802.11b

[snip] An alternative ATM-like 5 GHz standardized technology, HIPERLAN, has so far not succeeded in the market and with the release of the faster 54Mbs 802.11a standard, almost certainly never will. [/snip]

802.11a is that in the UK unkown standard, for home-users, whereas 54Mbs is known as 802.11g

What about other Wireless LAN systems?

Most of the wikipedia wireless network related pages that I have found seem to be lacking mention of non-IEEE standardized Wireless LAN systems. There is no mention of Motorola's Canopy system, for example. The Canopy system would probably fit best over at Broadband Wireless Access, but it can also be used to build normal (non-subscriber access) LANs. I'm working on pages for the major wirelss broadband systems, so I'd like some help figuring out where to link them in when I post the article.

My question is, do ya'll think that this page only referrers to IEEE standardized WLAN systems, or should it contain information on all kinds of Wireless LAN systems? Jonathan Auer 09:30, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

If they're in active widespread use (or were at some point), then we should probably mention to what degree they're used (compared to the mainstream 802.11*). Either way, sure, it makes sense to say that most wireless LANs are done using some version of the 802.11 standard, but other methods exist. -- Wisq 10:08, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Routers and Access Points

As a newcomer to wireless networking, I must say I get confused by the availability of routers versus access points, at almost equal prices and specifications. Searching around, I have not found very clear information about what the advantages (or even differences) are of having a router versus having an access point. I asume there must be more starters who get confused by this, so it might be good to dedicate a paragraph to this. As far as I understood it, the main difference is that a router offers build-in internet sharing, while with just an access point you need a computer to perform the internet sharing. But this may be a misunderstanding on my side. — Peter 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wireless routers are simply standard (home) broadband routers that have the functionality of a wireless access point built in. Or, from the opposite point of view, they're wireless access points that have an Ethernet switch (the multiple "inside" ports), an outbound interface (the "WAN" port), and IP masquerading (the "connection sharing") all built in.

You can achieve the exact same functionality as a wireless broadband router by having a wireless access point hooked up to a standard (wired) home broadband router. Conversely, you can get the same functionality of a wireless access point by taking a wireless router, turning off the outbound port, and hooking a single wire up to the set of inside ports. And you can get the equivalent of a WAP plus a switch by plugging more than one wire in.

WAPs used to be sold because people had their own fully-set-up broadband routers and just wanted to cheaply add wireless to them. But I'm guessing that as the price of wireless routers dropped, the cost margin between them and WAPs made WAPs unsellable — you get many times the functionality for minimal extra cost to produce or to buy. Although there are some speciality situations (like my own) where a WAP is more specifically suitable than a router, these are not your typical home situations — and any situation requiring a WAP can be solved with a router anyway.

In short, think of a WAP as a pure bridge between a single Ethernet wire and a bunch of wireless clients, a sort of wireless hub/switch. And think of a wireless router as a standard router with a WAP built-in, as if you just took a regular router and hooked it up to a WAP. – Wisq 19:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, please consider that advertising lingo and actual function are not always the same thing. A device which cannot act as a DHCP server, is likely not a router, regardless of what it's called. Merecat 06:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As another newbie question, when WISQ says that a WAP is a pure bridge between a single Ethernet wire and a bunch of wireless clients, does that mean that an AP by definition has to have some sort of routing capability to correctly service its clients? I'd imagine that the absolute most rudimentary AP would be completely analogous to stringing an ethernet cable to the AP, or am I on the wrong track?

Bridging, not routing. That means that broadcasts are sent to all hosts, both wired and wireless. Standard Ethernet traffic (with both source and destination MAC addresses) are forwarded between the wireless and wired networks based on the device's memory of where the destination device was last "seen at". This all takes place on the same logical network (i.e. same group of IP addresses). Routing, on the other hand, occurs between distinct logical networks. But even in a home broadband wireless router, the Ethernet ports and the wireless network are all on the same logical network; the routing part only occurs between that network and the Internet. – Wisq 15:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

---

A Wireless Access Point is a part of the WLAN system. Isnt it?

Anirudh

An Access point is a part of a fixed wireless network, either it's a router, bridge, switch or a hub - and either it's an embedded box or a PC configured as an access point. tobixen 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Access point / Wireless LAN cleanup

There is quite some overlapping between the Wireless LAN page and the Access point page. An access point is (just) a part of a fixed wireless network, so I suggest moving all content that is not directly related to access points from that article and over here, and to move out security concerns in an independent article. I will eventually do this if nobody protests and if/when I get the time ;-) tobixen 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

think about wireless LAN.....

we communicate to other system by means of wireless local area network.why we need this technology?may be it offence to human's normal life.how to rectify it?whether try to get a new technology without any offensive character or leave this technology? think about it.

Okay, I'll bite. How is a wireless LAN any more or less offensive than any other piece of technology? Radio towers broadcast signals you can pick up anywhere in the city, not just near a WAP. Cell phone towers form a network where you can chat from just about anywhere in many countries. People are sending and receiving e-mail everywhere on their Blackberries. Your computer and monitor emit EM radiation. Even a digital alarm clock emits EM radiation, and that means spending upwards of a third of your life lying next to a low-grade transmitter. Although I can understand (but not agree with) the notion that technology is "offensive" to human life, I fail to see why wireless LANs should be singled out in this regard. – Wisq 15:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Minor" Edit

Sorry for moving the whole security section to an independent article, and forget to deselect the "minor edit" checkbox :-)

---

Components

There should be a section of the TOC for the components of a wireless lan - the thing is that you cannot have one without all of the different parts - ap, capture device, etc - so describing WLAN w/out describing its parts is futile Johnbouma 23:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wireless LAN

There is a boy called "Wireless LAN" in Birmingham.

From JURYCOM: The article is fine as it is. Leave it alone.

Technical Issues

I think one interesting area not covered by this article is the issues protocol designers have to take into account when designing a wireless network, such as the 'exposed' and 'hidden station' problems. Also the likelihood of interference leading to loss of reliability (TCP, for example, confuses lots of noise with high traffic and so would decide to choke the line). These are just a few ideas, I'm gonna have a go soon maybe in a few days. --FearedInLasVegas 23:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Discuss links here

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!)

I am concerned that some of the external links comprise WP:WPSPAM and "me too" websites that are not notable. This wireless article is by no means alone in this. Certainly, there are enough external links right now. I propose that we do not add more unless a good case is made here for new links. Nelson50 11:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wireless NIC Merge

The Wireless NIC page is stubby, and rather than beefing that up, I think it would fit well here --Dbackes 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would think it might fit better with Network_interface_card as it is a subset of NICs, however given the technological difference with similar funcitonal opperation, I could probably go either way --161.184.204.75 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• I have also recently considered making a centralized Wireless networking hardware that could be referenced by all the various computer related Wireless networking articles.
• Just merge with Wireless LAN. Network_interface_card is a bit funny subject for an ensyclopedic article. It is more like a term to be defined, not a technology subject to be explained. Ethernet cards are best explained with Ethernet and WLAN cards with Wireless LAN. Porttikivi 14:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WiFi/WiMax/Wireless Broadband

I was hoping to learn about the differences between WiFi, WiMax and Wireless Broadband on this page. I don't see sufficient detail to do so. I would appreciate an expert contribution.TonyTheTiger 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• This may be slightly beyond the scope of the article, this article specifically deals with wireless local area networks, WiMax and Wireless broadband technologies are generally considered to be part of wireless metropolitan area networks. I would direct you to the Wireless networking article for this information, but I see it is also unfortunately in need of some cleanup and enhancement. --161.184.204.75 05:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• I suggest that the satellite and cellular sections either be moved to the Wireless networking article or be removed: neither is a wireless LAN technology.Scottwh 14:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Benefits Listed but no Disadvantages?

Hmm? 64.90.250.253 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Iv'e added some (I forgot to log in), probably not complete and some of the descriptions aren't the best, but it should be a good start. I'm probably also going to rewrite the benefits to be a little more encyclopedic, currently they look like they were copy-pasted from a summary, and I want to match the style of the Disadvantages. --Fittysix 02:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merger with Wireless network interface cards

In my opinion, the subject of Wireless network interface cards is separate and distinct from the subject of Wireless LANs (although, obviously, wireless LANs use Wireless network interface cards) and the two articles should remain separate with the requisite links between the two. It seems that the more that articles are merged, the larger they become and the more difficult they are to read and to find an article on a particular subject from the search bar. --mlewis000 21:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WAPI

From what I can see from the WAPI page, WAPI is not a WLAN standard but rather a security standard on top of WLANs. So 1) it should be mentioned in wireless security instead of this page, and 2) the way it is mentioned in this page gives the false impression that WAPI itself defines a WLAN standard. Saligron 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

How to find an unused frequency channel?

Right now I am trying to set up my first own WLAN. I am a physicist. I know radio: In AM radio one could scan the frequency and then listen to the noise. If I would set up my own AM transmission, I would choose a frequency based on that scan, so now one will have a reason to call the authorities ;-) . I have to accept that for many applications frequencies are not given in Hertz, but in TV-channels, notes, WLAN channels, or wavelength. So my question is, why is it so hard to get a power spectrum of the WLAN range, why is this topic not covered in google nor in wikipedia and why is it always directly associated with hacking? I just want to set up my WLAN and minimize interference with my neighbors, this should be THE standard problem, not wardriving! Arnero 05:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing: Possible health risk

This issue is important where big amount of users are affected: Universities, schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.62.112 (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the health risk is only known as speculative to the masses, you'll need to find a very reputable source(es) if you want to add those kinds of things to the page. 64.180.237.28 (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a non-issue and total crap, based on some fraudulent "research" produced by one Robert P. Liburdy, formerly of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. After Liburdy came out with his assertions that electromagnetic fields had a damaging effect on living cells, no one was able to replicate his results. It was shown in the ensuing investigation that he had fabricated data. He was reprimanded and forced to resign from LBNL. Like most urban legends on the 'Net, it's a monster that refuses to die.

Wireless LANs operate at frequencies where the skin effect predominates — the electromagnetic waves travel on the surface and there's negligible penetration. Moreover, the power levels are extremely low. Claims of damage to internal organs are specious, by inspection. —Quicksilver^{T @} 03:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The name change

The name now is redundant; the word "network" is part of the acronym "LAN". Also, if we keep it this way, the capitalization would need to be fixed as the title doesn't meet the criteria for capitalization. Check out the manual of style entry for this detail. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 20:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with E_dog95. The current name means "Wireless Local Area Network Network". The article should be named "Wireless LAN" or "WLAN".217.238.175.110 (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Virtual LAN?!

The page starts with "See also: Virtual LAN" which makes no sense at all. I'll take that out.Pgallert (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

.augustin daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.144.167.232 (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WLAN

one of the note book specification it is mentioned WLAN--Third party b/G can somebody help what you mean by Third party b/G Thanks Safee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.102.75 (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of WLAN

How is "WLAN" pronounced? "Double U lan" (W like in alphabet) or "we lan" (W like in wireless)? Thanx, 81.225.222.126 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Though I often discuss it, I don't recall ever wondering whether I should decide how to pronounce it. Usually it's "Wi-Fi" or "the radio part of your LAN". Jim.henderson (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

there's also weh-lan as in weh-weh-weh for www. and wlan like in Polish names (ie. Wlad Godzich) 64.229.101.183 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Australian connection

I've been informed by the National Museum of Australia that they're really interested in helping to make sure that the important Australian connection to the history of WLAN is covered here - because currently it's not mentioned at all. There's a little bit in Wifi#History and also a section at Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Industrial_Research_Organisation#802.11_patent but I'm not sure that's sufficient.
Please advise if you'd like me to put you in touch with a relevant person at the NMA to help gather sources, but for a start here's their "collection highlight" record about CSIRO's contribution to the development of WLAN see: http://www.nma.gov.au/collections/highlights/csiro_wlan_collection. Sincerely, Wittylama 01:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Environmental impact (on trees)

I think a section should be added about the fact that WLAN makes trees sick.

E.g. http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,6266327,00.html https://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/211219/wifi_makes_trees_sick_study_says.html

Mayhaymate (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WLAN security?

Maybe there should be a section added covering the security aspect of WLAN networks. E.g. that sites accessed through HTTPS are secure whilst sites accessed without HTTPS arent etc. Mayhaymate (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

802.11 specification operates at OSI layer 1. By some misunderstanding you've skipped to OSI level 4, irrelevant on this page. Internet Protocol (layer 3) is not the only protocol that can be used on wireless networks. And Security via WPA, WEP, et al applies to 802.11 but not all wireless networks.

Shjacks45 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wi-Fi Direct

Add Link to the Wi-Fi_Direct in the p2p section and/or move most/all the section to the Wi-Fi_Direct page. Larytet (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wi-Fi Direct is different from ad hoc mode, and I've added that to the article. It may now be a bit unclear which parts apply to one and which apply to the other. CaspianM (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased article: "Most modern WLANs are based on IEEE 802.11 standards"

A bit sloppy technically. We do business networks including wireless installations.

1.) POV is Biased towards strictly 802.11a/b/g and should be indicated in a changed title OR include generalized Wireless Local Area Network information. At the very least links to other wireless technologies. Zigbee, 802.15, Near Field Communication, Infrared (yeah, its wireless; part of 802.11), Bluetooth (yeah successor to HomeRF)(and wireless USB), ISM, etc. These technologies will connect two or more devices for data transfer, authentication, and other network tasks. And "wireless LAN" is not limited to IP only protocol e.g. Bridges, Repeaters, and Switches work at the MAC address level (OSI layer 2).

2.) What? "The billing of QoS is in the home network." Quality of Service? 802.11e? Quality of Service is defined in 802.1Q VLAN packet tagging.

3.)IEEE 802.11 "IEEE 802.11-1997: The WLAN standard was originally 1 Mbit/s and 2 Mbit/s, 2.4 GHz RF and infrared (IR) standard (1997)"

4.)IEEE 802.11 the standard is layer 1 standard (physical) with some layer 2 (data link) enhancements. It does not include layer 3 (network), e.g. Internet Protocol, standard support

Shjacks45 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Network terms confused

Although ethernet to ethernet Bridges exist e.g. signal boosters, generally the term is used for interfacing one type of physical media to another like copper to optical fiber (or wireless). A non-routable address (like 192.168.x.y) or DHCP generally can only be bridged not routed. A router can route one exclusive network address to another. Sophisticated Wireless Access Points like Cisco 1130 series have layer 2+ switch capabilities and can forward VLANs example unsecured "Guest" Internet access and secure access to business network. Some retail routers like Netgear 3500 can set up separate addresses (Wireless VLANs) for guest and secure network access (although routing is limited to one or two WAN ports to LAN or one DMZ port). A hub or bridge generally does not have an IP address and usually forwards MAC address of originating network adapter, as well as all network traffic. A Switch has a MAC address and maintains a routing table (usually by MAC address) so as not to forward unnecessary network traffic (not specifically addressed to devices on a port). Shjacks45 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)