Chill pills for everybody. This doesn't need to be a religious debate. It
has a non-philosophical answer.
The original question is reasonable, and the answer from IEEE (see
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/) is (drum roll ...):
"In geek speak, the IEEE 802.11b standard is the family of specifications
created by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. for
wireless, Ethernet local area networks in 2.4 gigahertz bandwidth space."
Everyone else is correct in saying that there is no limitation on how you
use it. If you can find clever ways to paste together a bunch of 802.11
networks to make a metropolitan area cell system, that's great! That's a
form of mesh networking, and companies like Tropos (
http://www.tropos.com)
do this.
But the 802.11 working group is Wireless LAN, and all designs coming from it
are architected to be optimal for local-area network conditions. That means
QOS is a secondary concern. It means transmit power and range requirements
are assumed to be modest. It means compatibility with Ethernet and other LAN
architectures is a priority (note the mention of Ethernet in the quote).
It's one reason why the access control mechanism is CSMA/CA - if they were
designing it to run high throughputs at high datarates with QOS guarantees,
they would *not* have chosen to make it an old-Ethernet-style collision
domain.
So, the design was intended for and works best with the kind of traffic you
find in a LAN. If you find clever ways to work around design limitations,
more power to you.
"Graham in Melton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:BBDC13A1.17D43%(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 15/11/03 5:20 pm, in article
(E-Mail Removed),
> "Mf12" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 08:27:55 -0000, "Ian" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Mf12" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>>
> >>> Is 802.11 intended *only* for local area networks, i.e. private
> >>> networks for businesses or homes? Or is it *also* intended to be a
> >>> national network of small cells to be operated by
> >>> national network providers who will provide wireless
> >>> Internet access from anywhere to any customer willing to pay the
> >>> service charges?
> >>>
> >> You seem to be confused its a technical standard. Do with it what you
want
> >> as long as you stick to the technical standard.
>
> > You seem to be confused! There is always a vision and intention for
> > a given standard and this can be determined by the companies that
> > PUSH this standard initially or PUSH this standard later. Obviously,
> > your mental capacity is limited to figure that out.
>
> Touchy !
>
> He's right and you're foot is in your mouth. You asked what 802.11 was
> intended for. 802.11 is a standard, not a "thing" designed for anything.
>
> Its like saying what is 240Volts designed for - it isn't designed for
> anything, but is a standard against which other objects can be measured.
>
> The standard 802.11 was written to allow communications wirelessly between
> tow computers - and as he said, make of it what you will.
>
> And be less touchy and more careful about the questions you ask.
>
> If you mean "Was 802.11 written to allow systems which comply with the
> standard, local area networks or is it intended to be a national network
of
> small cells ?", the answer is the same, it wasn't written for either or
> both, It was written to allow two boxes to communicate and what you do
with
> the two boxes is your decision.
>
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
