802.11n Headed for September Ratification

[Esurnir]

I'm wondering what are currently the main issue that postponed so much the release of 802.11n ? I think before it was the pattent issue but now what was the issue since the patent allegations got dropped ?

 

[thiggins]

The issue was Bluetooth coexistence.

 

[tipstir]

Are they really ready to make good on 802.11n standard? So many issues keeping the 802.11n stable in overhaul speed and performance. Most just stick with 802.11g where there isn't any issues besides the speed is not as great.

 

[Armornone]

When I first started trying to setup my home network, I got so tired of looking at all the Pre-N and Draft N devices, that I decided to setup everything with G standard which seem to be stable and have acceptable speeds for most average applications like web surfing, etc...

I figure these guys should come up with a final N standard before I jump into anything.

I thought that the N standard was not suppose to be released until 2011.

I am glad to hear that it might be coming sooner.

 

[JoeHombre]

Hello all,

We know that the current version of 802.11n is draft 2.0, yet the current working version by the IEEE Task Group N is daft 10.0. We’d expect upon ratification of the 11n standard that changes made since the 2.0 baseline used for Wi-Fi Alliance certification will be incorporated into subsequent 11n FW updates.

Seems possible that some problems with 802.11n draft 2.0 performance (re-boots, short range, slowness, etc.) could be corrected via final 802.11n FW but 802.11 history tells me not to bet on it. Those that go back to the pre- 802.11g era will recall that not all early-802.11g hardware versions were FW upgradable to the final 802.11g standard.

Last I read, the Wi-Fi Alliance has not yet decided if it will implement a re-certification test of 802.11 Draft 2.0 products for final 802.11n compliance. The Alliance seems to be looking to the IEEE Task Group N for leadership on this matter. So the future status of existing 802.11 draft 2.0 equipment is unclear.

Joe

 

[thiggins]

The problems you cite (reboots, short range, etc.) are implementation issues, not issues with the standard.

To my knowledge, there are no issues between draft 2.0 and draft 10 that would cause 2.0 compliant hardware to be not upgradeable. The issue will be more manufacturer resource allocation to integrate, test and release firmware and drivers to bring 2.0 equipment to the released standard.

The Wi-Fi Alliance has been working on a certification test suite for the released 802.11n standard, that they intend to release around the time that the standard is released. It will be up to manufacturers to decide whether it is worth it to resubmit current products for re-certification.

Given the length of time that draft 11n products have been in the marketplace, I suspect that you will see no big performance or operability differences between draft 2.0 and released standard product.

 

[tipstir]

If draft = 300mbps
Then standard = 600mbps

Or if this is not so then well going to have to ditch current draft models for full blown standard N.

 

[thiggins]

If draft = 300mbps
Then standard = 600mbps

Tipstir,
Where do you get this information?

 

[tipstir]

Tipstir,
Where do you get this information?

One Source
http://www.wirevolution.com/2007/09/07/how-does-80211n-get-to-600mbps

I know that Xrrius was talking about 8xxmbps or more for wireless 802.11n
There are a number of sites about this even on the Wiki for 802.11n.
Didn't one of your post your main reviews reported 802.11n to reach 600mbps when it was standard.

 

[thiggins]

Four streams are required (as well as channel bonding) to support 600 Mbps. Four streams have been in the draft standard all along and products could have been produced. But given the state of 11n device development and the potential high cost, there was no reason to produce them.

So the ratification of the standard itself does not enable 600 Mbps. Eventually there will be multiple classes of draft 11n products, based on the number of streams supported. This is an issue for the Wi-Fi Alliance to address in its certification programs and test suites.

 

[tipstir]

So this would mean that all Draft 2.0 N that are currently at 270mbps and 300mbps are not going to be flashed to 600mbps as the chip sets can't do more than what hey were made for. Those that are 150mbps as you have mentioned earlier won't fall under that ruling because they're not even certified draft 2.0 N.

What do you think of Quantenna Theory on 4x4 MIMO approach for N dual 40Hz?
http://www.quantenna.com/pdf/QHS1000.pdf

 

[thiggins]

So this would mean that all Draft 2.0 N that are currently at 270mbps and 300mbps are not going to be flashed to 600mbps as the chip sets can't do more than what hey were made for. Those that are 150mbps as you have mentioned earlier won't fall under that ruling because they're not even certified draft 2.0 N.

That is correct. Four streams require four transmit and receive channels, which isn't just a firmware flash...

What do you think of Quantenna Theory on 4x4 MIMO approach for N dual 40Hz?

As noted above, four transmit and receive channels are needed for four-stream operation.
Remember that you need a four-stream client to get a 600 Mbps link rate, too. That will probably take awhile, or maybe never for mobile devices since all those chains are going to suck up battery power.

Higher bandwidth/throughput for draft 11n will find the most use in expanding capacity for busy business / public WLANs. Draft 11n's higher throughput for consumers has yet to provide satisfactory wireless HD streaming due to higher (than 11g) throughput variation.

I suspect that good HD streaming may be solved more by products specifically tuned for that application with special QoS, forward error correction and other optimizations and not the general purpose wireless routers and adapters marketed today.

 

[zjohnr]

Yeah, but what's in it for me and my router?

It will be up to manufacturers to decide whether it is worth it to resubmit current products for re-certification.

Given the length of time that draft 11n products have been in the marketplace, I suspect that you will see no big performance or operability differences between draft 2.0 and released standard product.

I'm wondering what will happen with my DIR-655. OTOH, D-Link has been updating its firmware for quite a while so perhaps they will see fit to do this yet again and get the 655 blessed as "official" and "non-draft" 802.11n.

OTOH, why not just take most of the already proven guts and firmware of the 655 and call it something else after bringing it in line with the final spec? Why improve an old product when you can instead sell one that is "new and improved". (Perhaps it would also contain activated enzymes? They might help clean up the signal? )

Nothing to do but wait and see, of course. Pity I have never learned how to do that quietly.

-irrational john