Upgrading Wi-Fi — What, When, and Why

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?"

Re:No, its not time to upgrade.

[LiquidCoooled]

If your users are bitching that the net is too slow, upgrade.

Or, you could just allow standard port access and remove all the crap, its a wireless web interface not a bittorrent seeding point.
(Note, I'm talking about public shared access connections, what you do with your home connection is up to you)

no it is not.

[Bender Unit 22]

for me anyway.
I have 3 problems with WiFi.
1) Too many people near by with WiFi makes the connectivity suck within my apartment(have tried many channels). How about a new system where base units can figure out the best configuration when there are others nearby and even change them when the radio pattern(/coverage) changes.
2) My existing devices are not compatible with "New" security standards, fx. Ipaq and wpa2. For every WiFi enabled unit you buy, you have the problem of not being able to upgrade your security unless all devices support it.
3) My HP notebook drops connection when a cellphone is used in my apartment.

There are so many things that can break my WiFi net that I still prefer to use cables. Thought about getting a Squeezebox with WiFi, but I think I might as well save the money and just use cable.

Sometimes connectivity is all you need

[Bald Wookie]

I don't expect a lot from wireless. It's sort of like plugging a wonky network cable into a hub. You're connected to the network, but everything is delivered at 'best effort' or worse. Most of the time, that's really all that you need.

Can I open a web page? Check.
Send an email? Check.
VNC into a box? With some patience, check.
SSH into a device? Check.
IM? Check.
Can I do 95% of what I do at work over a wireless connection? Check.

The other five percent? I'm hoping for Gig-E because I'm using all of it.

The key is having realistic expectations of wireless. If your users don't understand that then they'll probably be disappointed with whatever you rollout.

Speed vs. Bandwidth

[JPFitting]

Does it really matter how much bandwidth one needs in terms of consumers? I would rather see improvments be made on how far the signal goes rather than how much it can handle. It never really mattered to me whether I had a B or G router as I only had a few computers using the internet at once. Granted, once FIOS is more widely used in the States the amount of bandwidth will have more of an effect.

Re:if it ain't broke, don't fix it

[Jeff DeMaagd]

My understanding is that "n" provides longer range and better link stability. I think that might be a reason to upgrade. If you move files a lot between local computers, the speed might help too.

That said, given that there isn't a finalized standard, I think it may generally be best to hold off on upgrades. If you need speed for your local network and can't wait, then buy matched sets of network devices, then for elsewhere, you can fall back to b/g which should be a lot more than enough for Internet stuff.

Cross platform security password compatability?

[jelton]

Do the upcoming offerings provide working cross-platform hashing algorithms? Meaning, if I have a LinkSys/Netgear/Foo 802.11x router, will I be able to use the password I entered or will I have to type out an increasingly lengthy hexadecimal equivalent on my MacBook? Try explaining to Mom why, after setting the cat's name as the password on the wireless router, they can't type that in when the system asks for the network password.

Fix this stuff first, then get the speed and latency stuff worked out. Sheesh!

Quality and coolness

[massysett]

How good is your router? I have found that the quality of your networking equipment can make a huge difference. I too live in an apartment building with lots of nearby access points--at night if I sit by my window I can catch at least ten signals. I used to have a POS Netgear router that would drop the connection repeatedly. Then I got the DLink DGL 4300, and this thing is rock solid. Drops maybe once a month.

Keeping the equipment cool also matters. For awhile I had the DGL 4300 on the floor, on its side, behind my PC, near the case and power supply exhaust fans. In the summer it sure gets hot back there, and my connection would drop quite a bit. I moved the router so it's on top of my case, and now the performance is rock solid.

All routers are not of the same quality. (I could say the same of cable modems, but that's another story entirely.) Cheap networking equipment does not pay. Make sure you have a good router and WiFi can work well even in tough circumstances.

Re:if it ain't broke, don't fix it

[mkraft]

Do what I did. Just log into their routers (since most people don't turn on encryption or even change the default password) and change all the channels. Now everyone else will conflict, but you'll have a channel all to yourself. :)

Re:I installed b in '00 or '01 and just upgraded t

[nido]

Just out of curiosity, where was your 2000/2001-era Cisco WAP made?

I saw an aritcle (which has since gone offline: Manufacturing: Probably made in China, by someone else [crmbuyer.com]) that said Intel made motherboards in Silicon Valley until 1999 or so. The massive movement to Chinese factories was triggered by the need to cut costs at the tail end of the dot-com bubble.

$700 sounds like a price you'd have to charge if you were paying Americans to put your industrial-grade wireless widget together... (I'm assuming your WAP was built like a tank - cisco used to be all about quality, until they bought Linksys for the "consumer grade" product lines.)

Re:No, its not time to upgrade.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, what is it with this administrative paranoia? Aren't we used to being connected to a network full of blackhat hackers and worms? You know, that internet thingy? Network operators should not be concerned with who is on the network. All that matters is that the network works. A "rogue" access point isn't going to change that, unless your network is an unreasonably large broadcast domain already. If it doesn't work, people are not going to keep their hardware connected to the net anyway. IMHO the only alternative to allowing users to plug in switches and access points is to completely eliminate the need for user-provided access multipliers. 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? If that's it, then I wouldn't want to be you when the next worm hits, because all the restrictions are not going to save you from that one laptop that caught it elsewhere and brings it onto your LAN, past the firewall and IDS.

Re:No, its not time to upgrade.

[Anonymous Coward]

if you look at properly secured networks

What I'm basically saying is that that notion is dangerous. There is no "properly secured network", except for the very rare case where every single point of access is separated from every other device on the network by a firewall/IDS. A switched ethernet is not secure, not even with MAC-locked ports, and certainly not with just MAC logging. Your argument is that a well-meaning user can cause havoc by plugging in off-the-shelf network hardware. I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider a network like that secure. Ethernet is just an unreliable und unauthenticating transport layer. Except for completely controlled environments it should not be trusted any more than a wireless network. Consequently, if the legitimate devices on your network are properly administered with that in mind, it doesn't matter what else is on the net. A deliberate flood should be necessary to disrupt network service on such a network.