Upgrading Wi-Fi — What, When, and Why 206
lessthan0 writes "Wi-Fi (802.11x) networks have been around long enough that many businesses and home users run their own. The first widely deployed standard was 802.11b, while most new hardware uses 802.11g. The latest 802.11n hardware is just around the corner. If you run an existing wireless network, is it time to upgrade?"
Just around the corner (Score:5, Insightful)
No, its not time to upgrade. (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, its not time to upgrade. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the general question, the answer is: Upgrade if you have to. If your users are bitching that the net is too slow, upgrade.
If you just want to be hip and spout the latest and greatest
Tom
Time to upgrade? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have *never* been able to find an 802.11g PCI card that I could put on a purchase order by vendor and part number. The few devices I have found (b and g) that worked, have been changed by the vendors into incompatable devices without notice.
The linux wi-fi community routinely points questions on this matter to a compatability chart that doesn't answer the question. I know about NDISWrapper. I know to avoid Broadcom chips. That knowledge helps for my personal computing, but it doesn't help when the professional task involves making a purchase order for a device that can be reliably, consistently obtained, or even identified.
On the end of the spectrum we'd like to be on, several competing vendors would warranty the merchandise as being compatable with linux, and would provide source-code compatable drivers (for kernel independence). We're at the extreme far other end of that spectrum, as far as I can tell.
Re:if it ain't broke, don't fix it (Score:3, Insightful)
Most comments seem to indicate upgrading is useless because speed improvements don't matter as long as the slowest wifi protocol is still faster than your internet connection, but speed is not the only concern. Future protocols are said to offer better/easier security and more reliabality, which if true is a good enough reason to me to upgrade.
saturation (Score:2, Insightful)
Take a look at your bandwidth utilization. If you are using less than 50% what would be the point of doubling your LAN speed? If you are using over 80% then I would think about upgrading to whatever suits the situation.
Another issue is getting a new machine and placing it on your LAN. Can you still easily and cheaply get ahold of an 802.11b/g? Can you get one from the same manufacturer (if you only have to support one manufacturer then you only have to remember one set of oddities)? While this may seem pointless at the moment for WiFi, I when throught these same questions when upgrading my personal LAN from AUI to 10baseT.
Find real reasons to upgrade or not -- but remember somtimes you just need to get one to "check out"
Re:if it ain't broke, don't fix it (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:2, Insightful)
> If you're unhappy with it, upgrade to 802.11g. If you are are unhappy with 802.11g, well, tough
> luck: as someone else already mentioned, 802.11n isn't coming out until 2008.
802.11a is generally much less crowded than 802.11 b/g and as fast as 802.11g. Wireless
in a crowded area can suck quite bad.
Re:Just around the corner (Score:3, Insightful)
Both 802.11b and 802.11g use the 2.4 Megahertz frequency...
The 802.11a standard runs at 5 Megahertz...
Either the author is running equipment that's operating ridiculously out of frequency spec, or he's woefully unfamiliar with SI unit prefixes. I'm betting the latter.
Re:Shouldn't it read... (Score:4, Insightful)
I installed b in '00 or '01 and just upgraded to g (Score:4, Insightful)
My DSL is (supposedly) 6Mbps downstream, so I could've justified it just on that grounds. My wireless was definitely slower than my network connection. But, at the end of the day, the fact that I process video and (now very large RAW) pictures on my laptop caused me to pull the trigger. After I'm done processing, I generally want to copy my files up to a server for backup. On a recent trip, I shot 8 GB of photos. Copying that on b would take about 18 hours. Copying it on g would take about 20 minutes. Obviously, even bigger video files would be worse.
As for security - I certainly don't trust ANY wireless (or wired, for that matter) system for security. I depend on application level security whenever I can get it (SSL, SSH) and VPNs when that's not an option. It's hard for me to imagine upgrading to g or n just for security - anything that does need to be secure in my world already is. Trusting ANY network is a good way to get caught with your pants down.
So, don't dismiss the performance gains from b to g. I increased my Internet download speed from 1Mbps to 6Mbps, and that was certainly worth the (compared to 2001) cheap cost of my new WAP. Even if your Internet connection is 1Mbps or slower, you may still have significant benefits if you copy large files around inside your network.
Re:Shouldn't it read... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, gigabit ethernet is no longer "much more expensive." I saw a 5-port gigabit switch at a retailer yesterday for under $12/port. Cards are equally cheap. The problem is that for most users, they won't notice the difference, or they'd have to change the cabling fro cat5 to cat6, or they have one or more boxes that are still runing 100mb, so there is zero point in upgrading.
Give it 5 years ...
Re:Just around the corner (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it seems everything in the technology world is "just around the corner."
I'm still baffled as to how people can buy something that isn't fully standarized. You know its going to change. Its like shelling out cash for a beta program. Would you buy a development model car with a 6 cylinder engine that curently only runs on 4 cylinders? No!
When all of the new hardware I buy supports it... (Score:3, Insightful)
My next laptop had 802.11b built in.
My next laptop had 802.11a/b/g built in.
I'm still using the 802.11b bridge that I originally bought. I'll get a new base station eventually, but there's not any hurry, since the bottleneck out of my apartment is the 1.5Mb DSL line, and the 11Mb WiFi is just fine.
I especially don't see the need to buy some add in card for my laptop that may hang out the side and cause other problems.
Wireless isn't for me. (Score:2, Insightful)
You can call me paranoid if you want but I will never use the wireless access on my router. I use the very same router the guy used in the article. WEP, WPA or WPA2 are too insecure for me to use.
A wireless router I would use is a router that uses at least 256bit encryption but would prefer military strength. And I want routers to containt a SD Memory card so I can use multiple encryption keys.
Wireless Routers are not ready YET. They are to insecure.
Re:No, its not time to upgrade. (Score:3, Insightful)
That and when you're in a group of 8 working in the cafe (again, only open tables) and there is no wifi and only 3 usable ethernet ports... again "bite me".
Many schools treat their students poorly because the halfwit techs they hire couldn't manage a lab let alone a standalone 8 port switch...
Tom
Re:Wifi Woes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No, its not time to upgrade. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they don't pay attention to who is on the network, then the network will cease to work. Would you want 10 people to use your home network and drive your performance through the floor?
I'm honestly interested: What is the reason for not wanting "rogue access points" on a network, except for the foolish belief that the network security is at risk?
First, it is not a foolish belief. The fact you believe it is foolish shows you do not really understand the underlying issues. While there are too many to list, here are a few off the top of my head:
Where I work, we've had people install wireless routers with DHCP turned on and giving out real network IPs because they wanted to get their assigned IP for their notebook. Of course, they made their SSID the same as the normal APs. Addressing and routing problems occured all over the building.
You can also interfere with other access points. If you set yours to the same channel as a nearby AP, you can wreck their performance. Your performance may be fine since you are in the same room as your rogue AP and your signal is strong enough. Not neccesarily true for neighboring rooms/buildings.
If you plug in a router that assigns IPs, even reserved IPs, you may be allowing an attacker to operate anonymously. The official APs may be set up to log all MAC addresses that attempt to connect or otherwise maintain information on the users. If your AP doesn't, then the attacker can't be traced in any way. Our location requires the MAC addresses to be registered - by going through a router this is eliminated. (MAC address is only seen by the router.)
There may be a firewall or IDS immediately "behind" official APs. There might not be a firewall where you connect into the wired network. Especially if you are in a lab, the machines might be patched with a firewall, anti-virus and other protection mechanisms in place, such as no administrator access to users. So anything entering from those machines has already made it past their defenses.
As for being connected to the internet thingy, sure there are a lot of bad things out there. However, if you look at properly secured networks, you would find that there is usually an "outer" firewall, then the DMZ with the machines (mail, web) that need to be accessed from the internet thingy, then there is an "inner" firewall with even more restrictive rules. Then you throw in a few IDS systems, proxy servers and other systems and any attacker has to really work to get into your network without at least alerting you something is going on.
Now, your point that someone can connect their laptop to the network is a valid one - which is why most corporations provide the laptops AND the administrative support for them to make sure they have the latest patches and security apps installed. Ideally, they also have a policy about how and where the laptop can be used. For example, the laptop is for work related business only - no online gambling, pr0n, etc. This greatly reduces the risk. Also, properly managed, the user doesn't have administrative access to the machine.
On a final note, don't assume that bad service indicates a bad admin. They may be operating under restrictions that you aren't aware of. For example, if a corporation donates equipment for a new lab, the school has to spend the time and money to wire it and maintain it. It's great that there is an additional lab, but there is no corresponding increase in staff, so everyone has to work harder. Lack of funds may prevent network upgrades or equipment replacements that are recommended by the admins. Maybe a switch went down and they can't replace it right away, so they decided to provide some service in each lab instead of eliminating all service in one lab.
Anyway, just because you don't think there is a problem with doing something doesn't mean there isn't. Respect the opinion of a professional - unless you know, from experience, they are wrong.