Talk:Wireless distribution system

message: Nowhere is mentioned that the connection between APs can be ethernet. This way WDSs main purpose is just make the roaming between APs seamless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.135.88.89 (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethernet backbone

message: I hope DoctorElmo or whoever else has stewardship of this article won't mind (or just improve it if he does), but I have added an example, created by "Super Mac Geek" @ forum.maccast.com, because in my opinion it is clearly written and adds to the understanding of the main article.  Too good to be just relegated to this discussion page (where few would see it).  OK? L0ngpar1sh (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Example added

message: This article is sh** and requires a decent tidy up and re-research. Appears a lot has changed since it was originally updated. 110.20.2.180 (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidy up

message: "Note: this WDS is different from the WDS implementation by Cisco, which stands for Wireless Domain Services."
I think that deserves a disambiguation note at the top of the page, but don't think it should be on the wds page.
I looked all over but couldn't figure out how to do it, and couldn't find a page that used it.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Disambiguating_pages
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Disambiguations
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Disambiguation
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Disambiguating_pages
None of those helped at all.
68.165.32.203 06:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a need for disambiguation here.  First, the link to Cisco's Wireless Domain Services is an external link, not a wikilink; second, disambiguation is already happening at the WDS page.  I've left the clarification in, but IMHO there's no ambiguity to disambiguate. DoctorElmo 06:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: disambig

message: "WPA cannot be used due to the dynamic nature of the encrypted key." 
It really seems like there are a lot of opinions (!) regarding WPA and WDS. Wikipedia mentions that WPA cannot be used. Apple states in http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/airportexpressfirmware611formacosx.html that a firmware upgrade (from december 2004) solves this. http://wrt-wiki.bsr-clan.de/index.php?title=WDS_Linked_router_network currently mentions that it doesn't work between DD-WRT and Airport Express (which might be expected with different vendors). http://rgbdream.com/?p=44 mentions (a bit down) that it actually currently is working in different setups... Penguindk 17:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Tim Higgins (of SmallNetBuilder.com) about WDS with WPA & WPA2, and he replied that "neither [WPA nor WPA2] is supported as a standard. Implementation is product specific." NCdave (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPA 

message: The article currently states, "Wireless throughput is cut approximately in half for each WDS repeating 'hop'." Www.meshdynamics.com has a bunch of glossy advertising literature that talks about using multiple radios to increase bandwidth and decrease latency and jitter. Basically, they say that with a dual radio access you point, you can have one radio handling the client services and the other radio handling the backhaul (the mesh infrastructure). If you add a third radio, you can have a full duplex connection for the backhaul (one radio transmits, the other receives).
This is clearly something that should be mentioned in the article, but I am not very knowledgable about WDS and even if I was, I wouldn't want to cite meshdynamics advertisements as if they were fact. I assume there is some real reference documentation, perhaps a published paper, which describes WDS with multiple radios. Could someone who is actually an expert in this field please edit the article so that it references that document? Thanks. 71.231.66.55 00:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  multiradio and throughput 

message: I also don't get the inversely proportional to 2^hops bit. Once it has halved, because the first hop can only receive and send half it's throughput at the same time, the second hop receives (assuming the same capacity) only half it's capacity, and so can send all of it simultaneously. Why does it not just half, once, and the whole network can send, at any large hops, half the Acess Point's capacity???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan.groenewald (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Throughput 

message: This list has become unencyclopedic. Its value is debatable and I'd like to clean it up after hearing some input. E_dog95'   Hi ' 05:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's unnecessary to list all of these different products (especially by model name like this. However, I do think it is appropriate to at least list the companies/manufacturers that make the products and I think that specific references to unique products are important to keep.--ArtifexCrastinus (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wireless_Distribution_System#Implementations|Implementations]] 

message: Why don't they certify it? I'd at least would like to see a citation for that. WDS isn't mentioned anywhere on Wi-Fi Alliance either.
--ArtifexCrastinus (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wi-Fi Alliance Certification 

message: Isn't there any speculation as to the feasibility of extending cell phone networks with WDS? It seems like such an obvious solution to reception problems, especially within buildings. I don't see why the network providers would have a problem with it at all. Woudn't it be an incredible boon for their customers to be happy with their current provider by allowing them to extend their coverage to their satisfaction *for them* at the customers' expense? If it's because they would no longer be able to provide accurate coverage maps, then the problem should be correctable through GPS.  Even if it would greatly increase the price of such units, the demand is still great enough that the upper class and large organizations would gladly buy many units.--ArtifexCrastinus (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell phone applications? 

message: Implementation sort of strikes me as something that should be at the end of the article. (maas15)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.132.221.226 (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementations at back? 

message: I couldn't understand how this concept works possibly because it is too long (TLDR) or worded incorrectly. 
I feel the concept could be more easily explained with a diagram, This means that the viewer only has to spend a few seconds to study the diagram and understand it, rather than take a few minutes to read lines of (somewhat boring) text to understand it. Icyyak (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A diagram is required to help readers better understand the concept. 

message: On the bottom of the article "Important Note: This "double hop" is not necessarily twice as slow"... is referring to latency, where the common issue with WDS is bandwidth.  I think this needs clarified.67.167.106.3 (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bandwidth vs Latency reduction caused by double hop.