Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] WIFI

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

This sounds more like an advertisement than a standard to me.

1. Security. There is no reason for a transmission medium to attempt
(attempt is the keyword) data encryptian or any other half-arsed ideas.
Security is an end-protocol problem and should be kept there - where
easily software upgradable. Wireless isn't much easier than wired networks
to plug into and just listen. WEP is just a good example of how stupid
security in the transmission medium can be.

2. Backhaul. They are assuming an ISP-like model. Most wireless MAN's are
evolving along a decentralized design instead. Instead of one massive
connection they share dozens of slower connections to the Internet and a
lot of them provide MAN-wide services that would usually be provided by
the ISP or an outside site. Proxy servers, web mail, file sharing, etc. To
some extent there is still a hotspot problem but the holes get filled in
as more people join the mesh.

3. Congestion. This is only a problem where there are non-public wireless
networks clogging things up. The access to a wider range of bandwidth in
newer wireless protocols will help in this area as will a higher ratio of
open networks to closed networks.

I guess I'd appreciate their technology for making buildings etc less of
an obstacle but I'm not sure from this article if they have a real advance
or just a good marketing department selling us something we already had.


Peace, Love, Linux

;):):-):):-):):-)8')
Michael McGlothlin <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
http://kavlon.org/projects/

> Check out this story! http://australia.internet.com/r/article/jsp/sid/12431
>
> I think that wifi without the line of sight thing is only months away....
--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/