Of course, once in the 802.11 committee, each vendor has pushed its own technologies and specificities in the standard to try to make the standard closer to its product. The result is a standard which took far too much time to complete, which is overcomplicated and bloated with features, and might be obsoleted before products come to market by newer technologies. But it is a standard based on experience, versatile and well designed and including all of the optimisations and clever techniques developed by the different vendors.
The 802.11 standard specifies one MAC protocol and 3 physical layers : Frequency Hopping 1 Mb/s (only), Direct Sequence 1 and 2 Mb/s and diffuse infrared (can we really call it a "standard" when in includes 3 incompatible physical layers ?). Since then, it has been extended to support 2 Mb/s for Frequency Hopping and 5.5 and 11 Mb/s for Direct Sequence (802.11b). The MAC has two main standards of operation, a distributed mode (CSMA/CA), and a coordinated mode (polling mode - not much used in practice). 802.11 of course uses MAC level retransmissions, and also RTS/CTS and fragmentation.
The optional power management features are quite complex. The 802.11 MAC protocol also includes optional authentication and encryption (using the WEP, Wired Equivalent Privacy, which is RC4 40 bits - some vendors do offer 128 bits RC4 as well). On the other hand, 802.11 lacks to defines some area (multirate, roaming, inter AP communication...), that might be covered by future developments of the standard or complementary standards. Some 802.11 products also implement proprietary extensions (bit-rate adaptation, additional modulation schemes, stronger encryption...), those extensions may or may not be added to the standard over time.
When 802.11 was finalised (september 97), most vendors were slow to implement 802.11 products because of the complexity of the standard and the number of mandatory features (and in some cases they also need to provide backward compatibility with their own previous line of products). Some of the optional features (encryption and power saving) did only appear months after the initial release of the product. But things seem to be sorted out and we now have fully featured products on the market. The complexity of the specification, the tightness of the requirements and the level of investment required made 802.11 products expensive compared to the previous generation of wireless LANs, but because of the higher standardisation and higher volumes, prices are now dropping.
Even if vendors eventually have launched 802.11 products, the standard
doesn't fully guarantee inter-operability : the products have to
use at least the same physical layer, the same bit rate and the same
mode of operation (and there is so many other little important
details...). The most cooperative vendors have been busy lately
sorting out interoperability issues with independent testing labs, but
it is still a touchy subject...
6.2 802.11-b and 802.11-a (802.11 at 5 GHz)
After 7 years of arguing in sub-committees making 802.11, you would
think that most people would had enough of it. In fact no, the 802.11
committee is now busy pushing a new standard at 5 GHz, and also higher
speed at 2.4 GHz (by tweaking the Direct Sequence physical
layer). Both standard makes changes only to the physical layer, so
that the 802.11 MAC can be reused totally unmodified, saving costs.
802.11-a (802.11 at 5 GHz) was standardised first (spring 99), based on OFDM (see chapter 4.7.4), and using the UNII band (see chapter 4.2 - so it won't be available in Europe and Japan). The OFDM physical layer is a very close copy of the one used in HiperLan II (so they might be some sort of compatibility - see chapter 6.4), using 52 subcarriers in a 20 MHz channel, offering 6, 12 and 24 Mb/s and optional 9, 18, 36, 48 and 54 Mb/s bit-rates. No products are yet on the market.
Very soon after, 802.11 did standardise 802.11-b (802.11 HR),
based on a modified DS physical layer (see chapter 4.7.3). The
goal was to extend the life of the 2.4 GHz band by overcoming the
major drawback : low speed. On top of the original 802.11-DS
standard, 802.11-b offer additional 5.5 Mb/s and 11 Mb/s bit rates. It
was approved by the FCC and they are now products on the market (which
are quite popular).
6.3 HiperLan
HiperLan is the total opposite of 802.11. This standard
has been designed by a committee of researcher within the ETSI,
without strong vendors influence, and is quite different from existing
products. The standard is quite simple, uses some advanced features,
and has already been ratified a while ago (summer 96 - we are now only
waiting for the products).
The first main advantage of Hiperlan is that it works in a dedicated bandwidth (5.1 to 5.3 GHz, allocated only in Europe), and so doesn't have to include spread spectrum. The signalling rate is 23.5 Mb/s, and 5 fixed channels are defined. The protocol uses a variant of CSMA/CA based on packet time to live and priority, and MAC level retransmissions. The protocol includes optional encryption (no algorythm mandated) and power saving.
The nicest feature of Hiperlan (apart from the high speed) is the ad-hoc routing : if your destination is out of reach, intermediate nodes will automatically forward it through the optimal route within the Hiperlan network (the routes are regularly automatically recalculated). Hiperlan is also totally ad-hoc, requiring no configuration and no central controller.
The main deficiency of Hiperlan standard is that it doesn't provide real isochronous services (but comes quite close with time to live and priority), doesn't fully specify the access point mechanisms and hasn't really been proved to work on a large scale in the real world. Overhead tends also to be quite large (really big packet headers).
HiperLan suffers from the same disease as 802.11 : the
requirements are tight and the protocol complex, making it very
expensive.
HiperLan II was the first standard to be based on OFDM
modulation (see chapter 4.7.4). Each sub-carrier may be modulated by
different modulations (and use different convolutional code, a sort of
FEC), which allow to offer multiple bit-rates (6, 9, 12, 18, 27 and 36
Mb/s, with optional 54 Mb/s), with likely performance around 25 Mb/s
bit-rate. The channel width is 20 MHz and includes 48 OFDM carriers
used to carry data and 4 additional are used as references (pilot
carriers - total is 52 carriers, 312.5 kHz spacing).
HiperLan II is a Wireless ATM system (see chapter 5.1.4),
and the MAC protocol is a TDMA scheme centrally coordinated with
reservation slots. Each slot has a 54 B payload, and the MAC
provide SAR (segmentation and reassembly - fragment large packets into
54 B cells, see chapter 5.2.2)
and ARQ (Automatic Request - MAC retransmissions, see chapter 5.2.1). The
scheduler (in the central coordinator) is flexible and adaptive, with
a call admission control, and the content of the TDMA frame change on
a frame basis to accommodate traffic needs. HiperLan II also
defines power saving and security features.
HiperLan II is designed to carry ATM cells, but also IP packets, Firewire
packets (IEEE 1394) and digital voice (from cellular phones). The main
advantage of HiperLan II is that it can offer better quality of
service (low latency) and differentiated quality of service (guarantee
of bandwidth), which is what people deploying wireless distribution
system want. On the other hand, I'm worried about the protocol
overhead, especially for IP traffic.
OpenAir is a pre-802.11 protocol, using Frequency Hopping and 0.8 and
1.6 Mb/s bit rate (2FSK and 4FSK). The radio turnaround (size of
contention slots and between packets) is much larger than in 802.11,
which allow a cheaper implementation but reduces performance.
The OpenAir MAC protocol is CSMA/CA with MAC retransmissions, and
heavily based on RTS/CTS, each contention slot contains a full RTS/CTS
exchange, which offer good robustness but some overhead. A nice
feature of the protocol is that the access point can send all its
traffic contention free at the beginning of each dwell and then switch
the channel back to contention access mode.
OpenAir doesn't implement any encryption at the MAC layer, but
generates Network ID based on a password (Security ID). This provide
some security only because Proxim controls the way all the
implementation behave (they don't provide a way to synchronise to any
network as 802.11 manufacturers do). OpenAir also provide coarse power
saving.
The HomeRF is a group of big companies from different
background formed to push the usage of Wireless LAN in the home and
the small office. This group is developing and promoting a new Radio
Lan standard : SWAP.
The Home is a good market for Wireless LAN because very few houses are
nowadays cabled with Ethernet wire between the different rooms, and
because mobility in the home is desired (browse the web on the
sofa). The use of the 2.4 GHz band allows a free worldwide deployment
of the system.
The HomeRF has decided to tackle the main obstacle preventing the
deployment of Wireless LAN : the cost. Most users just
can't afford to spend the money required to buy a couple of Radio LAN
cards to connect their PCs (without talking of the access point).
The main cost of a radio LAN is the modem. As this is analog and high
power electronics, it doesn't follows Moore's law (the market
trend that allow you to buy a Cray at the price of a calculator
after a few years) and modems tend to be fairly stable in
price. Frequency Hopping modems tend to be less expensive, but
the 802.11 specification impose tight constraints on the modem
(timing and filtering), making it high cost. The SWAP
specification, by releasing slightly those constraints, allows for a
much cheaper implementation, but still keeps a good performance.
The MAC protocol is implemented in software and digital, so doesn't
contribute that much to the final cost of the product (except in term
of development cost). Releasing some hardware constraints prevented
the use of the 802.11, which anyway was much too complex and including
too many features not necessary for the task.
The main killer application that the HomeRF group envisages is the
integration of digital cordless telephony and the computing word,
allowing the PC to reroute the phone calls in the home or to offer
voice services to the users.
A new MAC protocol has been designed, much simpler, combining the best
feature of DECT (an ETSI digital cordless phone standard) and IEEE
802.11 : a digital cordless phone and ad-hoc data network,
integrated together.
The voice service is carried over a classical TDMA protocol
(with interference protection, as the band is unlicensed) and reuse
the standard DECT architecture and voice codec. The data part use a
CSMA/CA access mechanism similar to 802.11 (with MAC level
retransmission, fragmentation...) to offer a service very similar to
Ethernet.
The 1 Mb/s Frequency Hopping physical layer (with optional
2 Mb/s using 4FSK) allows 6 voice connections and enough data
throughput for most users in the Home. The voice quality should be
equivalent to DECT in Europe and much better than any current digital
phone in the US. Data performance should be slightly lower than
802.11. The MAC protocol has also been designed in a very flexible
way, allowing to develop very cheap handset or data terminals and high
performance multimedia cards for PCs...
The SWAP specification is an open standard (in fact, more open
than 802.11, because there should be no royalty or patent issues),
quite simple and straightforward. In fact, the combination of voice
and data gets already most marketing people drooling ! The only
drawback is that you will have to wait a bit before seeing SWAP
products in your favourite supermarket...
I personally read the BlueTooth specification, and I was not
impressed, expect by the size of the thing (more than 1500
pages !). My take is that BlueTooth offers the functionality of a
Wireless USB, and in fact looking into the huge specification
we can see some similarities in the design.
BlueTooth offers the possibility to create a set of point to point
wireless serial pipes (RfComm) between a master and up to 6
slaves, with a protocol (SDP) to bind those pipes to a specific
application or driver. The BlueTooth mindset is very vertical, with
various profiles defining every details from bit level to application
level. TCP/IP is only one profile, implemented through PPP in a
specific pipe. There are other pipes for audio, Obex... With
BlueTooth, nodes need to be explicitely connected, but they remember
bindings from one time to another.
This is miles away from the current wireless LAN approach
(connectionless broadcast interface, native IP support, cellular
deployement, horizontal play), so BlueTooth doesn't fit TCP/IP and
wireless LAN applications too well. On the other hand, as a wireless
USB, it fulfil a role that regular wireless LANs can't, because TCP/IP
discovery and binding protocols are more heavyweight.
Currently, BlueTooth is moving very slow (my first reading of the spec
was autumn 97 - then called MC-Link) due to its complexity and
the inherent limits due to the protocol design (people are learning
how to workaround "features"), but eventually some products should
reach the market and later on software support should come...
In summary, if all you want is to run TCP/IP, you may find it cheaper
and more effective to NOT wait for BlueTooth and live without the
hype.
6.4 HiperLan II
HiperLan II is the total opposite of HiperLan (see
above ;-). The first HiperLan was designed to build ad-hoc networks,
the second HiperLan was designed for managed infrastructure and
wireless distribution systems. The only similarities is the HiperLan
II is being specified by the ETSI (Broadband Radio Access Network
group), operate at 5 GHz (5.4 to 5.7 GHz) and the band is dedicated in
europe.
6.5 OpenAir
OpenAir is the proprietary protocol from Proxim. As Proxim is
one of the largest Wireless LAN manufacturer (if not the largest, but
it depends which numbers you are looking at), they are trying to push
OpenAir as an alternative to 802.11 through the WLIF (Wireless
LAN Interoperability Forum). Proxim is the only one having all the
detailed informations on OpenAir, and strangely enough all the OpenAir
products are based on Proxim's module.
6.6 HomeRF & SWAP
NOTE : this chapter was written when I was finishing
writing the SWAP 1.0 specification in December 98. After I left the
HomeRF, a lot of big political game did happen, which triggered some
critical changes to the specification (SWAP 1.1). I don't really know
how much of it is still accurate, but I believe that the standard is
no longer as open and vendor neutral as it was and that performance
has been dramatically reduced.
6.7 BlueTooth
BlueTooth should not even be mentioned in this document, but people
keep thinking that BlueTooth is a Wireless LAN. BlueTooth is a
cable replacement technology mostly developed and promoted by
Ericsson with the help of Intel, offering point to point
links and no native support for IP (need to use PPP). It may be good
for some applications, but not for Wireless LANs.
Linux Wireless LAN Howto -
jt@hpl.hp.com
Converted to html from Frame Maker - 25 August 98
Updated 3 August 00
Copyright © 1996-2004 Jean Tourrilhes
Project hosted and sponsored by :