802.11n, a status check

[Geo]

Man, this is taking longer than I thought (I was expecting this stuff in August, or September at the latest).

But:

http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Sate...nksys/Common/VisitorWrapper&lid=6499327773B03

IRVINE, Calif., – Oct. 23, 2007 – Linksys, a Division of Cisco, the leading provider of VoIP, wireless and networking hardware for the consumer and small business environments, today announced Ultra RangePlus, its new premium line of home networking products. Ultra RangePlus is a family of products for consumers who are looking to maximize both the performance and range of their wireless networks*. The first available products from the family are the Ultra RangePlus Dual-Band Wireless-N Gigabit Router (WRT600N) and the Ultra RangePlus Dual-Band Wireless-N Notebook Adapter (WPC600N).

And now the owie part:

Both the WRT600N and WPC600N are available now through Linksys e-commerce resellers at estimated street prices of $279.99 and $99.99 respectively.

It's looking like dual-band is going to be expensive for some time to come, but if you want to combine max speed with max backwards compatibility, then that's the way to go for most people.

 

[digitalwanderer]

In other words, no new router for a bit longer?

 

[AlNom]

So where are the 802.11n-only products? I would switch all my computers over to wireless-n immediately with no thought for backward compatibility. :|

 

[Geo]

http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202102994&pgno=5

But that's still not quite what you mean. For a n-only (and even then, not really, but at least a G-less N. . it'd still have 802.11a compatibility) you'd be looking at a single-band 5GHz router. Given that a radio transmitter is a radio transmitter, maybe we'll be seeing some that are configurable to be either 5GHz or 2.4GHz and the user gets to choose what's more important for them, speed or compatibility.

 

[shyam335]

Is the ad hoc performance limited to 11Mbs in the 'n' too?

 

[the maddman]

http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202102994&pgno=5

But that's still not quite what you mean. For a n-only (and even then, not really, but at least a G-less N. . it'd still have 802.11a compatibility) you'd be looking at a single-band 5GHz router. Given that a radio transmitter is a radio transmitter, maybe we'll be seeing some that are configurable to be either 5GHz or 2.4GHz and the user gets to choose what's more important for them, speed or compatibility.

I'm not sure what'd I'd want. 5ghz is faster then 2.4, but the range isn't as great. If I was to drop my 802.11a setup (which I probably won't, I'd have to spend a lot of money to get another access point as nice as the one I have) I'd probably want a N only dual band system. The more frequency space you can use, the more likely you can get away from interference.

 

[Geo]

5Ghz is only faster to the degree it gives you a greater chance to escape interference that will prevent the bonding of two 20hz channels into one 40hz channel. For some people this won't matter much (out in the country, not a lot of 2.4ghz gear around to interfere), and for others it may matter a great deal (dense urban settings, typically).

 

[Frank]

The waiting is now for a multi-band, frequency-hopping and packet switching protocol. Like mobile phones use for some time.

It isn't about what works best, but about being able to sell the same equipment three times for each gradual improvement: once for the actual improvement, once for the software update that makes it work, and the third time to lock down the hardware and produce the unit real cheap.

 

[Geo]

An extended review of Linksys new simultaneous dual-band WRT600N:

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30208/96/

If you dig in to the numbers several pages in, you'll find that mixed mode (i.e. simultaneous 802.11g and 802.11n clients) performance is very disappointing (basically 802.11g traffic gets stomped badly). Whether this will be addressed with a firmware update later on, who knows. But since the reason for these two-radio dual-band routers to exist in the first place is exactly that scenario, it's quite disappointing. Indeed, that was one of the chief reasons draft 1 of 802.11n was defeated so resoundingly in the voting --it didn't address friendly co-existance well enuf. And now it appears that at least early draft 2 routers are still not doing such a great job at it.

Still waiting for an entry from Netgear, and the D-link DIR-855 which was announced all the way back at CES in January!

 

[Moloch]

I use a airport extreme N (the older 100mb one) and cant get over 40mb's with the router a little ways away (its in living room, my pc is in room a little ways ago), I really wish I could get get closer to 100mb with wireless Some day...

 

[Sxotty]

I have a dir-655, but I have not yet set it up b/c my verizon fios router freaked out when I attempted to put it in bridge mode.

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30087/96/

 

[Geo]

100mb/s is supposed to be the real world sustained transfer rate target for 802.11n The spec is 300mb/s, but that's just not going to happen for real. You might show that connect rate, but you won't get that transfer rate.

I think that linksys tested was doing around 80mb/s.

 

[Valzic]

I have just bought a DIR 655 and yes the connection shows 200-300 but not that fast. Howver it is noticeably faster than it was using 802.11g so overall I am pleased.

Of course as the week goes by, I will get used to the speed increase and it will feel slow again LOL.

 

[Moloch]

100mb/s is supposed to be the real world sustained transfer rate target for 802.11n The spec is 300mb/s, but that's just not going to happen for real. You might show that connect rate, but you won't get that transfer rate.

I think that linksys tested was doing around 80mb/s.

I see alot of different kind of numbers in reviews for 11N setups, I see some that struggle to reach 40-50mb/s and others that are close to 100mb/s

 

[Frank]

If you want good transfer rates: use the simplest encryption possible. The difference is an overhead between 10% (simple, 64 bit) to 300% (very safe, all the bells and whistles) of the effective data transfer rate.

 

[Geo]

That's true. The review above makes the point that WPA2 w/AES is the best for throughput right now. TKIP is deadly.

 

[Frank]

While you want some encryption, how many people do you know who can break even the simplest one? The level of safety is only interesting if you're working for a company that demands that level. In which case they will pay the bill.

A simple, basic WEP 64 encryption is sufficient and fastest for just about anyone at home. WPA + AES requires quite a bit more overhead. Those reviewers look at the lowest encryption usable that is unbreakable, so nobody will sue them. You don't need that at home.

 

[Zaphod]

A simple, basic WEP 64 encryption is sufficient and fastest for just about anyone at home. WPA + AES requires quite a bit more overhead.

Not true for the majority of recent (2004 onwards) routers out there (ones that actually support WPA(2)/AES), even the cheapest 802.11g ones. WPA-PSK + AES tend to be notably faster than WEP.

 

[Moloch]

Not true for the majority of recent (2004 onwards) routers out there (ones that actually support WPA(2)/AES), even the cheapest 802.11g ones. WPA-PSK + AES tend to be notably faster than WEP.

That's been my experience as well.

 

[Geo]

Not to mention actually being somewhat secure, which one can't really say about WEP.