Talk:IEEE 802.11n-2009

message: *28403571*  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.183.215.116 (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

message: अरे ये तो बताओ कि ये काम कैसे करती है।
""MIMO technology relies on multipath signals. Multipath signals are the reflected signals arriving at the receiver some time after the line of sight (LOS) signal transmission has been received. In a non-MIMO based 802.11a/b/g network, multipath signals were perceived as interference degrading a receiver's ability to recover the message information in the signal. MIMO uses the multipath signal's diversity to increase a receiver's ability to recover the message information from the signal.""
The diversity that MIMO uses to increase a receiver's ability to recover the message information from the signal, originate from the fact that we have multiple antennas. Even when we are talking about 1 antenna at the receiver/transmitter we still have reflections and YES we take them into consideration (even in the case of SISO) or else we wouldnt be able to decode the symbols due to Intersymbol Interference (ISI). 
The fact that MIMO offers better BER for a given SNR is because of the multiple antennas(multiple transmition channels) not just multipath. The person who wrote that paragraph is probably a computer scientist that has read about wireless communications in a computer magazine...     147.27.200.12 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed it was wrong (and unsourced), feel free to write something better with WP:SOURCES. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubbish 

message: 802.11n how can be released in 2009 ?
2007 might be the right number.
 
:I don't think so.
2007 was the date when the first draft came out. And more five of them were released until the 2.0 one.
The IEEE standard was only approved in 2009.
Zakzor (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison chart 

message: It's clear from the article that 802.11n devices can coexist with a/b/g devices, but can they communicate with each other? Is it enough to have an "n" AP to allow "a" clients communicating with "b" or "g" clients? With an "n" client, can I connect to "a", "b" or "g" only APs? At what speed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.110.188 (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can communicate with a 801.11b at a rate of 11Mbits/s and a "g" at 54Mbits/s. If the "n" router supports the 5Ghz band you can also communicate with a 802.11a router/receiver at the rate of 54Mbits.
With an "n" client you can connect with any router using their maximum speed except some 802.11a ones. In this case the client must support the 5Ghz mode.
Zakzor (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compatibility with a/b/g 

message: Although maybe technically correct, the article states (at the top) November 2009 as the expected finalization date of 802.11n and (in the comparison table) January 2010 as the release date. According to http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Reports/802.11_Timelines.htm (already in the citations), November 2009 is the expected date for "Final 802.11 WG Approval" and "Final or (Conditional) 802 EC Approval" (EC = Executive Committee), while January 2010 is listed for "RevCom & Standards Board Final or Continuous Process Approval".
Wouldn't it be better to have the article mention one date or explain the difference between them? 83.134.79.213 (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between finalization and release dates 

message: Ive flagged this as needing updating relating to the CSIRO patent dispute, further new infomation can be found here:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/bonanza-for-csiro-after-landmark-patent-win/2009/04/22/1240079730838.html (23/4/09)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.4.10 (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BEBOLD -- KelleyCook (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BEBOLD doesn't mean wholesale deletion of pertinant information just because you feel like it. Never slowed the process down? Where have you been?  I humbly request someone take a look at this diff and consider if it should be reverted or not. I vote revision, not deletion. For what that's worth. draeath 23:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, go read the records at https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/documents?is_group=000n 802.11n was not ever delayed because of the patent dispute ... which was never resolved by the way.  It was delayed for many other reasons.  Furthermore, this dispute is not 802.11n specific.  It applied to all the 802.11 protocols. -- KelleyCook (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update - CSIRO Patent Dispute 

message: I can't find this info anywhere. Are ad-hoc networks supported in 802.11n ? That is at higher speed than 802.11a/g. Can anyone with 802.11n (draft) equipment try this? That would be great!
--Xerces8 (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad-hoc networks ? 

message: I see there is virtually no mention of the increased range attainable when you use a N router with b/g clients. Could a knowledgeable person write a section on this important aspect of the N class? --Quatermass (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well find a source and go for it.  But my thoughts are the increased range you obtain from using the 11n protocol is almost entirely from the benefits that MIMO has added.  But MIMO use requires a client device capable of using MIMO (which if it is strictly G, it can't -- yes I know there many companies put their own  proprietary MIMO variations on 11g).  On the other hand, due to the years of refining, I imagine that a lot of APs have more efficient designs in general (regardless of which protocol you are connecting with), which means that they have better range for everything connecting to that newer AP, but that has nothing to do with 802.11n itself. -- KelleyCook (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Range

message: I read in an article (Heise c't magazine, issue 7/2010, page 86) that the 802.11n standard mandates a bandwidth limit of max 54 Mbps for stations using WPA-TKIP encryption. Sounds surprising. Can anyone confirm?
--Xerces8 (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's due to the fact you are not alloed to use TKIP with 802.11n, so it should then degrade to underlying 802.11a/g →AzaToth 22:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed limit for WPA-TKIP ? 

message: I think we should add this to the article
"... it uses the "nLite" technology also found in TP-Link's TL-WR741ND wireless router. This means that although the router is compatible with 802.11n-enabled adapters and notebooks, it will only deliver a maximum throughput of 150 megabits per second (Mbps). That's half of what 802.11n routers can theoretically achieve, but significantly faster than the 108Mbps limit of enhanced 802.11g routers."
LINK
Also we should see if the range is the same  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmaldia (talk • contribs) 04:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  802.11N versus 802.11Nlite 

message: The table lists what I think are wrong speeds for the 802.11ac standard.
The column under which the speeds are entered is listed as a per-stream speed, and that is what is used for 802.11n, which can hit 2x150=300 with 2 ki7tnbkuytlniyhlinhu
byyl ijyglnku
streams [Netgear WNDR3800], and 3x150=450 with 3 streams [Netgear WNDR4500]), and presumably hardware capable of 4x150=600 with 4 streams will also eventually pop up.
I believe that for 802.11ac the values are:
433 Mbps is the 80MHz single stream max
867 Mbps is the 160MHz single stream max
with 1/2/4/8 streams, you then get:
433 Mbps, 867 Mbps, 1.73 Gbps, 3.47 Gbps [for 80 MHz]
867 Mbps, 1.73 Gbps, 3.47 Gbps, 6.93 Gbps [for 160 MHz]
However, I haven't read the standard. MaZe Pallas (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed at Template:802.11 network standards. I haven't read the standard either, but found a good whitepaper about it. --cesarb (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  802.11ac speeds 

message: On a typical 802.11n router, there are a choice of channels.  One might expect that selecting channel 3 would mean "centered on 3, actually spreads over 1-5". But does that mean that if the user chooses channel 1, then half of the benefit of using N mode is wasted (because centered on 1 would also use 2 and 3, but can't use the non-existent 0 and -1?)
Also, if deploying several APs, does that mean that one should use only channels 3 and 9 ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.19.201 (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which channels to use? 

message: With a 3-antenna access point, what's the best way to orient the antennas? Should they be like an inverted tripod, or all parallel? It's not clear whether the 3 antennas should work as a parallel phased array, or as 3 independent axes?
78.32.19.201 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIMO best antenna orientation? 

message: Is this still an issue? Is there anything in Out-broadcasting worth merging into this article? ~KvnG 14:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Out-broadcasting]] 

message: The second link under standard is broken and needs to be replaced.
gsykesvoyage (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: ١٠٩٨٧٦٥٤٣ 37.239.66.38 (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ظ