Report 07

1 802.
11n : NEXT GENERATION NETWORK
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 I NTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................3
1.0 HIGH PERFORMANCE...................................................................................................................4
Chapter 2 The State of the Standards....................................................................................................5
2.1 INNOVATIONS IN 802.11N...........................................................................................................6
2.2 802.11n at the RF Layer...............................................................................................................7
2.3 Antenna Diversity........................................................................................................................8
2.3.1 High Performance 802.11n at the PHY Layer.......................................................................8
2.4 Channel Bonding..........................................................................................................................9
2.5 More OFDM Subcarriers..............................................................................................................9
2.6 Short Guard Interval..................................................................................................................10
2.7 Frame Aggregation and Selective Retransmission.....................................................................10
2.8 Reduced Interframe Spacing.....................................................................................................10
2.9 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DRAFT 2.0 AND DRAFT 11.0................................................................11
2.9.1 Aggregation........................................................................................................................11
2.9.2 Three Spatial Streams.........................................................................................................11
2.9.3 Coexistence Features..........................................................................................................12
Chapter 3 The State of the Market......................................................................................................13
3.1 802.11N CLIENTS.......................................................................................................................13
3.2 Market Size................................................................................................................................13
3.3 Wireless Only Devices................................................................................................................14
3.4 INFRASTRUCTURE SIDE.............................................................................................................14
3.4.1 Market Size.........................................................................................................................14
3.4.2 The All-Wireless Edge.........................................................................................................15
Chapter 4 The Business Case for 802.11n...........................................................................................16
4.1 INCREASED CAPACITY AND PERFORMANCE..............................................................................16
4.2 Runs All Applications.................................................................................................................16
4.3 Higher User Densities................................................................................................................17
4.4 Extended Coverage....................................................................................................................17
4.5 LOWER TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP........................................................................................17
4.6 BATTERY LIFE AND POWER SAVINGS.........................................................................................18
SOE,CUSAT - IT
2 802.11n : NEXT GENERATION NETWORK
4.6.1 Better Reception at the Access Point..................................................................................18

4.6.2 MAC Layer Energy Savings..................................................................................................18
4.6.3 Spatial Multiplexing Power Save.........................................................................................18
4.6.4 Power Save Multi Poll.........................................................................................................18
Chapter 5 Issues in 802.11n Network Design......................................................................................19
5.1 DESIGNING THE NETWORK FOR MULTIPATH............................................................................19
5.2 Access Point Coverage is Unpredictable....................................................................................19
5.3 Coverage Planning is Complicated.............................................................................................20
5.3.1 Microcell.............................................................................................................................20
5.3.2 Virtual Cell..........................................................................................................................22
5.4 MIXED MODE NETWORKS.........................................................................................................22
5.4.1 Airtime Fairness..................................................................................................................22
5.4.2 Fairness Among Clients.......................................................................................................23
5.4.3 Uplink vs. Downlink fairness...............................................................................................23
5.5 POWER OVER ETHERNET...........................................................................................................23
5.6 CLIENT DESIGN ISSUES..............................................................................................................24
5.7 BAND AND CHANNEL SELECTION..............................................................................................24
Chapter 6 Real World Experiences......................................................................................................28
6.1 MORRISVILLE STATE COLLEGE: PERVASIVE COVERAGE, HIGH PERFORMANCE.........................28
6.2 HALIFAX HEALTH: 100% RELIABILITY, PREDICTABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY................................28
6.3 THE WASHINGTON NATIONALS: VERY HIGH USER DENSITY......................................................29
Summary......................................................................................................................................29
References...................................................................................................................................30
SOE,CUSAT - IT
CHAPTER 1 I NTRODUCTION
• In January 2004 IEEE announced that it had formed a new 802.11 Task Group (TGn) to
develop a new amendment to the 802.11 standard for local-area wireless networks. The real
data throughput is estimated to reach a theoretical 540 Mbit/s (which may require an even
higher raw data rate at the physical layer), and should be up to 40 times faster than 802.11b,
and near 10 times faster than 802.11a or 802.11g. It is projected that 802.11n will also offer a
better operating distance than current networks.
• There were two competing proposals of the 802.11n standard: WWiSe (World-Wide
Spectrum Efficiency), backed by companies including Broadcom, and TGn Sync backed by
Intel and Philips.
• Previous competitors TGnSync, WWiSE, and a third group, MITMOT, said in late July 2005
that they would merge their respective proposals as a draft which would be sent to the IEEE
in September; a final version will be submitted in November. The standardization process is
expected to be completed by the second half of 2006.
• 802.11n builds upon previous 802.11 standards by adding MIMO (multiple-input multiple-
output) and orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM). MIMO uses multiple
transmitter and receiver antennas to allow for increased data throughput through spatial
multiplexing and increased range by exploiting the spatial diversity, perhaps through coding
schemes like Alamouti coding.
• The Enhanced Wireless Consortium (EWC) was formed to help accelerate the IEEE 802.11n
development process and promote a technology specification for interoperability of next-
generation wireless local area networking (WLAN) products.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
1.0 HIGH PERFORMANCE
But 802.11n is more than just another evolutionary step. As Figure 1 shows, it marks the point
at which wireless LANs can truly equal their wired equivalents in terms of raw performance –
meaning real throughput for TCP applications, not just theoretical data rate. Many users
already treat wireless as their primary means of connectivity, to such an
extent that hardware manufacturers have begun to avoid wired Ethernet entirely.
And with 802.11n now the most common wireless connectivity option in new
client devices, the number of users relying on wireless increases all the time. When
combined with Meru’s technology, 802.11n means that almost any organization can become
an All-Wireless Enterprise. The move to 802.11n is a big one, but it doesn’t have to be
disruptive. For users upgrading from previous wireless technologies, it is designed to be fully
backwards-compatible – although care must be taken to ensure smooth coexistence
in networks with mixed client types. For those upgrading straight from wired
Ethernet, there are technologies that can give 802.11n all the reliability, security
and scalability that users, applications and enterprises expect from wired
networks.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
Chapter 2 The State of the Standards
The final 802.11n standard was ratified by the IEEE in September 2009, but products first
shipped in 2007. This is because the Wi-Fi Alliance, the group that certifies 802.11 wireless
LANs for interoperability, devised a set of tests around a draft of the standard. The initial
products were tested to conform to Draft 2.0 of the standard, first published in early 2007.
The specification has gone through many revisions since then, with the full standard based on
Draft 11.0. But most of these have been very slight, and the final standard is close enough to
Draft 2.0 that all products certified as compliant with the earlier draft are also interoperable
with products based on the final standard. In fact, no retesting is necessary for existing
equipment. As far as the Wi-Fi Alliance is concerned, 802.11n is 802.11n. That isn’t just
good news for early adopters who deployed 802.11n access points before September 2009.
It’s good news for anyone who bought a Wi-Fi laptop, phone or other device in the last three
years, as there’s a good chance that it included a wireless interface based on 802.11n Draft
2.0. With no changes necessary to support the final standard, this means that a large and
growing proportion of the installed client base in many organizations is already 802.11n-
capable. All that’s needed to achieve the near-tenfold increase in data rate offered by 802.11n
is an upgrade of the wireless infrastructure. “Draft 2.0 products will be allowed to claim to be
fully 802.11n certified now.” – Edgar Figueroa, executive director, Wi-Fi Alliance
SOE,CUSAT - IT
2.1 INNOVATIONS IN 802.11N

IEEE 802.11n improves on previous 802.11 systems in many ways, primarily designed to
increase overall throughput but also boosting range and battery life. Because these
enhancements affect multiple levels of the networking stack, the real gains in performance
over 802.11g and 802.11a are even greater than implied by the increased headline data rate.
The move to 802.11n doesn’t just increase the total capacity from 54 Mbps to 300 Mbps; it
reduces the proportion wasted in signaling overhead and error-correction so that more is
available to real applications. The improvements in 802.11n can be categorized according to
which of the three lowest levels of the networking stack they affect as shown in Figure
2.Together, these increase throughput by a factor of about ten. In wireless networks, the
lowest level of all is the RF layer, covering radio propagation and other phenomena unique to
wireless networks. Above that is the PHY layer; roughly analogous to Layer 1 in wired
Ethernet, though the actual technology is very different. Higher still is the MAC layer,
corresponding to Layer 2 in wired Ethernet. The similarities between 802.11 and Ethernet are
clearer here: the original 802.11 MAC was based loosely on that of Ethernet, though many
changes have been made to deal with the unique characteristics of wireless networks,
culminating in 802.11n. At Layer 3 and above, wired and wireless are identical. TCP/IP
applications can treat an 802.11n network exactly as they would treat wired Ethernet.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
2.2 802.11n at the RF Layer

At the very lowest layer, beneath the traditional OSI or TCP/IP network stack models,
802.11n uses multiple antennas to improve signal diversity and quality. In an all-802.11n link,
multiple antennas can be used to send multiple data streams at once, increasing bandwidth.
They also have the useful side effect of improving reception, meaning that a well-designed
802.11n access point will improve performance even when used with legacy clients. Spatial
Multiplexing and MIMO The most well-known innovation in 802.11n is MIMO (multiple-
input, multiple-output), which uses parallel radio streams: sending multiple signals that each
encode a different set of data and each travel via a different path, shown in Figure 2. Though
the standard supports up to four streams, only two are needed to reach a data rate of 300
Mbps. Most equipment supports two, so Wi-Fi Alliance interoperability tests initially covered
one or two streams. A system using two separate streams can send up to twice as much data
as a system that uses only one. The receiver needs to recombine the two streams into one,
similar to how someone listening to music can hear a different instrument in each ear and then
recombine them into a tune. Just as the music listener needs two ears to do this, the receiver
needs to have at least as many antennas as there are spatial streams so that it can tell them
apart. Each stream needs to be transmitted from a separate antenna too, so the number of
streams is limited by the number of antennas. To support two streams, both the transmitter
and receiver need to have two antennas.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
2.3 Antenna Diversity

Adding more antennas doesn’t necessarily add more spatial streams. Many access points available
today include three antennas even though they only support two spatial streams. The extra antenna
adds diversity, essentially improving reception for better coverage. Because all 802.11 systems drop
down to lower data rates when signal strength is poor, this also helps improve data rate at most
distances from an access point. A receiver with more than one antenna can also perform maximum
ratio combining, which is essentially echo cancellation. This is needed because a signal can take
different routes from transmitter to receiver, each copy arriving at a slightly different time. The
receiver listens to the signal on two or three different antennas and calculates the time difference
between these echoes, then reassemble the signal so that bits are in the correct order. Antenna
diversity works better for receivers than transmitters, as the transmitter has no easy way to know how
multipath interference will affect the signal it is sending. And while multiple transmitting antennas
could theoretically increase the strength of a signal, this is prohibited by FCC regulations (and similar
rules from regulators in other countries) that limit the transmission power allowed from unlicensed
radios. Because antenna diversity is usually implemented at the access point, the speed boost it offers
is asymmetric, improving upstream but not downstream performance.
2.3.1 High Performance 802.11n at the PHY Layer

At the physical layer, 802.11n uses several innovations to squeeze more data through the airwaves
while improving reliability.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
2.4 Channel Bonding

The 802.11a/g standards used channels that were 20 MHz wide. The 802.11n standard offers
the option of combining two together into a single 40 MHz channel without needing an
additional radio. By itself, this doubles the available capacity from each radio in an access
point. Channel bonding is perhaps the simplest technique used in 802.11n: twice as much
spectrum leads to twice the performance. However, using larger channels means that fewer
channels are available, an important consideration in network design. There can be particular
problems when building out networks based on a “micro cell” architecture in which adjacent
access points must use non-overlapping channels, especially in the narrow 2.4 GHz band.
2.5 More OFDM Subcarriers

The main innovation in 802.11a and 802.11g was the introduction
OFDM(orthogonalfrequency division multiplexing), a technique that divides the
availablechannel into many narrowband subcarriers. The advantage is that if many subcarriers
are used, each one only has to support a relatively low data rate, improving reliability and
predictability by making the system more resilient to interference and multipath effects. For
example, 802.11a/g has a maximum data rate of 54 Mbps, achieved by slicing a 20 MHz.
channel into 52 subcarriers. Each of these subcarriers only has to carry data at just over 1
Mbps. In 802.11n, the same size channel is divided into 56 subcarriers but the data rate of
each subcarrier remains the same, increasing the overall throughput by about 8%. Because the
40 Hz. channel is twice as wide, it can accommodate 114 subcarriers, an increase of 119% as
shown in Figure 4.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
2.6 Short Guard Interval

To avoid confusion between multiple signals sent in a series, the 802.11 standards require that
a short gap be left between them. In 802.11n, there is the option of shortening this gap (guard
interval) from the 800 ns used in previous versions of the standard to only 400 ns. Because
the radio spends less time waiting and more time transmitting, more data can be sent.
High Performance 802.11n at the MAC Layer
Although 802.11a/g offered physical layer data rates of 54 Mbps, real throughput in many
networks is less than half that number thanks to protocol overhead. The 802.11n MAC layer
is designed to be more efficient, leading to potential TCP throughput of around 200 Mbps.
2.7 Frame Aggregation and Selective Retransmission

Previous versions of 802.11need to send a header and a beacon before every data frame, then
check for an acknowledgement (ACK) that the frame has been received. In 802.11n, up to 64
frames (or 64 Kbytes) can be sent together in a block called an AMPDU (Aggregated
ACProtocol Data Unit.)
Each AMPDU is acknowledged with a single ACK (a block ACK), avoiding the need for up to 63
headers, beacons and ACKs. Because frame loss is common in all forms of 802.11, the block ACK
can specify exactly which frames it received, enabling retransmission of only those that were lost.
Once all frames have been received loud and clear, software in the 802.11n device reassembles them
into the correct order before passing them off to an application. The benefits of frame aggregation
depend on the applications running. It is most useful for applications in which large amounts of data
need to be sent at once such as file transfers. It isn’t useful in voice, as VoIP requires that a packet be
sent every few milliseconds to avoid a noticeable gap in conversation. With the relatively low
bandwidth requirement of voice, there are frequent small packets and no opportunity for aggregation.
2.8 Reduced Interframe Spacing

Frame aggregation requires that all frames are being sent to the same client. When an access point
needs to transmit multiple frames to different clients, it usually leaves a small gap in between during
which it checks that it still has access to the airwaves (i.e. that no client is about to transmit.) In
802.11n, access points are given preferential treatment so that they can avoid this check, transmitting
multiple frames with a shorter space between them. Because Reduced Interframe Spacing requires
SOE,CUSAT - IT
that clients respect the access point’s right to send multiple frames in quick succession, it only works
with 802.11n clients and cannot be used in mixed-mode networks that include legacy clients.
2.9 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DRAFT 2.0 AND DRAFT 11.0

The final IEEE 802.11n standard (Draft 11.0) is fully interoperable with equipment based on the
earlier Draft 2.0 and products certified for Draft 2.0 are able to claim compliance with the
standard. However, the two are not entirely identical, as shown in Table 1. The major new
features in Draft 11.0 are:
2.9.1 Aggregation
Although many 802.11n devices have supported frame aggregation from the start, it was not included
in the Wi-Fi Alliance’s tests covering Draft 2.0. Some early 802.11n client chipsets only include a 32
Kbyte buffer, which limits the maximum AMPDU size to this rather than the 64 Kbytes of most
equipment. Because this is a hardware limitation, it is not something that can be changed without
replacing the network interface card. Such clients can still use all 802.11n’s other performance-
enhancing features.
2.9.2 Three Spatial Streams

The 802.11n standard supports up to four spatial streams, though this is optional and has not been
implemented. With approval of the final standard, the Wi-Fi Alliance will start testing equipment that
uses three. However, this too will be optional, while all equipment (except phones) must be able to
support two. Although many access points include three antennas, most support two streams and use
the extra antenna for increased diversity (better reception), which leads to improved reliability.
Supporting three streams will require three antennas on clients, which adds to their cost and physical
size. Transmitting from extra antennas can also increase power consumption, though this is mitigated
by sending data faster and so needing to transmit for less time.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
2.9.3 Coexistence Features

The final 802.11n standard also includes two extra features aimed at smoother interoperability
between different forms of 802.11n. At the RF layer, space-time block coding lets single-
streamdevices (usually phones) join networks without adversely affecting performance for clients able
to support two or more streams. At the PHY layer, a bonded 40 MHz channel can drop down to a
single 20 MHz channel if one part of the channel is blocked by interference.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
Chapter 3 The State of the Market

With products shipping for more than two years, many wireless devices already support 802.11n. The
Wi-Fi Alliance has already certified more than 600 products as compliant with Draft 2.0 of the
standard, none of which will need to be recertified. In addition, the final standard means that many
more products are expected to ship over the next year. These are not just laptops or other clients
where wireless replaces Ethernet. They include devices such as cell phones and tablets that previously
have not offered (wired or wireless) LAN connectivity.
3.1 802.11N CLIENTS

Many networks that have not yet deployed 802.11n infrastructure already have a significant
proportion of 802.11n clients among their installed base, thanks to decisions by laptop makers to
include 802.11n as standard in new computers. This proportion is growing all the time and will be
spurred by the ratification of 802.11n
3.2 Market Size

As Figure 5 shows, the 802.11n client market overtook the legacy 802.11 client market in mid-2009
even before the standard was officially ratified. Research firm Dell’Oro Group predicts that legacy
802.11 shipments will continue to fall rapidly, with all new wireless network interface cards
supporting 802.11n by 2012. One important factor to note is that client adaptors only include mini-
PCI, USB and PC cards that are typically included in devices such as laptops or bought separately for
upgrades. They do not include devices such as cell phones that include 802.11 radios built-in. This is
why the total size of the market is projected to fall: 802.11n capability will be standard on so many
devices that separate wireless network interface cards become unnecessary.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
3.3 Wireless Only Devices

An increasing number of devices now lack wired Ethernet entirely. The Apple MacBook is the best
example among laptops, but many netbooks are also relying exclusively on wireless network
connections. Wireless links are practical for classes of client that have never included Ethernet
connectivity, from cell phones to locator badges. The wireless LAN is extending the network out to
make it truly ubiquitous, a trend that will be accelerated by 802.11n.
3.4 INFRASTRUCTURE SIDE

Meru Networks shipped the first enterprise 802.11n infrastructure products in early 2007. Since then,
many other enterprise vendors have shipped access points supporting Draft 2.0 of the standard. Take-
up has been even more rapid in the home market, which has helped to drive client adoption and user
expectations of high-performance wireless connectivity.
3.4.1 Market Size

As figure 6 shows, the enterprise 802.11n access point market continued to grow despite the
recession. Although the overall market for wireless LAN hardware shrank in 2009, a result of the
same economic forces that have affected the rest of the networking industry, the growing proportion
of access points featuring 802.11n has more than compensated for this.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
As with the figures for client devices, the dollar numbers on the access point market do not tell the
whole story. This is because much of the intelligence in most enterprise wireless LAN systems resides
in controllers and management software rather than access points. The market share of controller-
based systems is projected to increase as wireless access becomes increasingly critical, as independent
access points are generally not suitable for large scale networks. The overall size of the enterprise
wireless LAN market is about twice that for access points alone. Most controllers are not 802.11n-
specific, so 802.11n controllers do not make up a separate category. However, the move to 802.11n is
a significant boost to the controller market, as both the higher data rates of 8022.11n and the increased
demand for wireless access will necessitate faster (or more) controllers.
3.4.2 The All-Wireless Edge

Dell’Oro group projects that unlike the market for network interface cards, the market for enterprise
access points will grow for the foreseeable future. Much of this growth will come at the expense of
wired networks, as 802.11n allows an increasing number of people to use wireless as their primary
means of network connectivity. Few organizations will actually rip out their wires. In many cases,
upgrading to 802.11n will be an alternative to upgrading Ethernet switches and cables, as wireless is
the mode of access seeing an increase in traffic while wired traffic remains constant or even declines.
Other organizations will forego cabling in new buildings, choosing instead to rely on wireless. The
latter strategy is already popular in some industries such as higher education and healthcare, and
likely to extend elsewhere as the benefits of 802.11n become clearer.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
Chapter 4 The Business Case for 802.11n

With IT budgets under constant pressure, many organizations are resistant to the idea of upgrading or
installing a new wireless network. However, the 802.11n market is still growing, as even more
organizations recognize that it can actually save money. The reason is that when properly designed
and built, an 802.11n wireless network makes upgrades to edge Ethernet unnecessary.
4.1 INCREASED CAPACITY AND PERFORMANCE

The most obvious reason to upgrade to 802.11n is its increased data rate. For the first time, wireless
networks are faster than their wired counterparts, opening up the possibility of replacing wires in
almost all applications. Many users had already switched away from Ethernet to wireless links based
on older versions of 802.11, but this often meant compromising performance. With 802.11n, such
compromises are no longer necessary. In tests conducted by independent research firm Novarum1 a
single 802.11n radio link using a Meru access point consistently offered real TCP throughput of more
than 190 Mbps – about twice that of switched Ethernet. In addition to support for more bandwidth-
hungry applications like video, this high performance enables greater user density and increased
reliability.
4.2 Runs All Applications

Many applications require more bandwidth than 802.11a/g can comfortably provide. While the
maximum data rate from an 802.11a/g network is typically about 20 Mbps, applications requiring
lower data rates can still be impacted by insufficient bandwidth. This is because all 802.11 systems
drop down to lower data rates whenever the signal to noise ratio is low, for example when the client is
far from an access point or in the presence of interference. With 802.11n’s maximum of nearly 200
Mbps, there is much more bandwidth to spare, increasing reliability. In addition, antenna diversity
means that the system is less likely to need to drop to lower data rates in a well-architected network.
This opens up many new applications such as:
• Electronic medical record systems that need at least 24 Mbps
• High-definition video streaming, important in schools as well as in the home market
SOE,CUSAT - IT
• Two-way video communication, used by some hospitals for real-time interpreting between spoken
language and sign language
4.3 Higher User Densities

Even applications that never need to consume more than 10 Mbps can benefit from 802.11n, as the
greater overall capacity enables more users to share the same access point. The most important such
example is voice, whose bandwidth requirements rarely exceed a few kbps yet is very demanding in
terms of latency and quality-of-service. Because each voice client consumes less airtime using
802.11n, networks using 802.11n can support more users per access point. They can also offer each
packet a high quality of service while ensuring minimal impact on data applications. In tests by
Novarum, a single 802.11n radio on a Meru access point comfortably handled ten legacy voice clients
with each call consistently sounding better than toll quality, all while maintaining high speeds for data
users. When other vendors’ access points were similarly loaded, voice was unintelligible or silent
altogether.
4.4 Extended Coverage

Equally important for many applications, an 802.11n network improves range and coverage compared
to legacy 802.11g and 802.11a. This is due mostly to the multiple antenna systems used at both ends
of the wireless link, and means that an 802.11n network can offer higher performance even when used
with legacy equipment. Because the data rate in 802.11 systems depends on the client’s distance from
the access point, improving range can also improve capacity. The area over which the maximum data
rate is available will generally be greater in an 802.11n system than in a legacy system.
4.5 LOWER TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP

According to independent consultancy Network Strategy Partners2, an 802.11n wireless LAN based
on Meru technology generally costs less than one third of a wired Ethernet system that provides
similar capacity. For example, in an office measuring 250,000 square feet, wireless LAN network
infrastructure would cost 57 cents per square foot compared to $2.07 per square foot for wired
Ethernet. These savings have always been possible. However, previous wireless technologies could
not always match the performance and predictability of wired Ethernet, meaning that a direct wired
vs. wireless comparison was not possible for organizations with very demanding applications.
Wireless was effectively a drain on resources – an extra edge network that had to be maintained and
supported in addition to wired Ethernet. The increased performance of 802.11n changes things.
Wireless becomes a cost saver, able to rival and then replace Ethernet. Enterprises can move to
wireless confident that all their existing applications will run as well as on a wired network, saving
money while users gain the added benefits of mobility.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
4.6 BATTERY LIFE AND POWER SAVINGS

The extended range of an 802.11n network cuts power consumption compared to a legacy network,
reducing cost and environmental impact at the same time as increasing the uptime offered from a
UPS system of a given capacity. But the most significant energy-saving benefits are on the client side.
For a device to be truly wireless, it needs to be able to run without a power cord for an extended
period of time so battery life is critically important. Faster Transmissions to Clients The faster a
client can transmit data, the less time it needs to spend transmitting and thus the longer its radio can
spend switched off. Higher data rates for downstream (access point to client) traffic also help, as
actively receiving data uses more than passively waiting for it.
4.6.1 Better Reception at the Access Point

Many access points include extra antennas for increased gain through maximal ratio combining. This
allows the client to transmit at a lower power, further reducing power consumption.
4.6.2 MAC Layer Energy Savings

In addition to speed improvements, the 802.11n MAC includes two mechanisms directly designed to
reduce power consumption, increasing client battery life and reliability.
4.6.3 Spatial Multiplexing Power Save

Using multiple antennas can increase the power drain compared to using just one, even if they are set
to listen only. Spatial Multiplexing Power Save allows the system to turn off all but one antenna so
that the client can still listen for transmissions without wasting energy. The antennas that are powered
down can rapidly switch back on when needed.
4.6.4 Power Save Multi Poll

If a client knows that it will not be receiving a transmission for a given amount of time, it can switch
off all its radios and antennas until that time for dramatic power savings. Previous 802.11 standards
were based on random access to the airwaves, with one device having no way of knowing when
another would try to contact it. In 802.11n, clients can reserve a transmission at a specific time,
making the transmission process more predictable and allowing them to switch off.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
Chapter 5 Issues in 802.11n Network Design

Because 802.11n is so different from previous wireless technologies, network architecture principles
that worked for 802.11a/b/g cannot necessarily be applied to 802.11n. Multipath effects and MIMO
change signal propagation dramatically, making planning more difficult. The need for backward
compatibility complicates things, as many networks will need to ensure that older clients are
supported without slowing down 802.11n clients. The increased demands on 802.11n networks also
entail new considerations in design and planning. With wireless a critical, primary network
connection, it needs to match Ethernet in all ways, not just performance. While 802.11n itself
provides increased wirelike speed, other techniques are needed to ensure that the network offers
wirelike stability, security and scalability.
5.1 DESIGNING THE NETWORK FOR MULTIPATH

Multipath effects are a result of the different routes that a signal can take between a transmitter and
receiver. They have traditionally been regarded as a problem because signals that take different routes
can interfere with each other. MIMO turns them from a bug into a feature by using the multiple paths
to carry different streams of data. However, multipath effects can still cause issues. Because paths
depend on obstacles between the transmitter, they are difficult to predict and fluctuate from moment
to moment as people or objects move. This makes network design much more complicated.
5.2 Access Point Coverage is Unpredictable

In 802.11a/b/g networks, maps showing the radio footprint of each access point are relatively simple.
An access point’s coverage area is a contiguous blob, with stronger signals available closer to the
access point. Coverage can be represented as a series of concentric circles emanating from each of the
APs, with higher data rate circles closer to the AP – not an entirely accurate representation, but one
close enough for rough planning purposes. The main factor affecting coverage is distance from access
point. Some types of obstacles can partially block radio waves, but these simply reduce the coverage
area. In 802.11n, coverage is much less predictable. It depends on the way in which radio waves
reflect off, refract through or diffract around obstacles such as walls, cube dividers and even people.
Figure 7 shows the actual coverage of an 802.11n AP in an office building, higher data rates indicated
by darker shades. Some areas of high performance coverage are very far away from the AP and not
contiguous with those closer to it.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
5.3 Coverage Planning is Complicated

To ensure that a wireless network is available over a large area, the radio footprints of access points
need to overlap so that clients can move from one to another without any interruption. However,
overlapping coverage areas usually cause interference, regardless of which version of 802.11 the
network is using. There are two different ways to solve this problem:
5.3.1 Microcell
Most 802.11a/b/g networks still use a microcell architecture, so-called because it is essentially a
scaled-down version of the design pattern used in early cellular systems. Each access point is tuned to
a different channel from its neighbors to avoid interference. The advantage of this approach is that it
allows a network to be deployed with little coordination between access points, an important
consideration when they were standalone devices that had to be managed independently. The
traditional disadvantages are that it requires a lot of radio spectrum – at least three non-overlapping
channels – and that it forces clients to retune to a new channel as they move between cells, guessing
SOE,CUSAT - IT
for themselves which access point they should connect to.
The move to 802.11n highlights another problem of the microcell architecture: the difficulty in
planning the coverage pattern. As Figure 8 illustrates, three channels are sufficient to provide wide
area coverage without interference in a network where all access points have a roughly circular
coverage area such as one based on 802.11a/b/g. If the same AP placement is tried with an 802.11n
network, it cannot operate at full power because the extended range results in increased interference.
Turning down the power introduces dead zones – areas with no signal – because the spiky coverage
areas are harder to fit together. Trying to fill these dead zones with new access points causes more
interference, forcing a new channel plan to be created in which some access points’ power output is
further reduced, perhaps causing new dead zones. Even introducing more channels is not always
helpful, as shown in Figure 9.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
5.3.2 Virtual Cell

A Virtual Cell tightly coordinates the transmissions of adjacent access points so that all can use the
same channel (or the same channels, as most modern access points have more than one radio.) The
advantages of this approach are that less radio spectrum is needed for each later of coverage, as in the
single-channel architecture of 3G and CDMA cellular networks, and that client devices are not
responsible for connectivity decisions. As with 3G and CMA networks, this architecture lets multiple
channels be used in the same physical space so that multiple Virtual Cells can coexist. The difference
is that whereas 3G and CDMA use the multiple channels to support multiple competing operators, the
Virtual Cell uses them to add capacity and redundancy to the network for increased performance and
reliability, an architecture known as Channel Layering. The disadvantage is that it requires a lot of
intelligence within the network. It is currently only available from Meru Networks. Although initially
used with 802.11a/b/g, the Virtual Cell’s advantages are greatest in an 802.11n network. This is
because it avoids the problems caused by co-channel interference automatically, allowing all access
points to operate at full power. A dead zone can be filled by a new access point without causing
problems for others. Rather than causing problems for each other, adjacent access points augment
each other like light bulbs of the same color.
5.4 MIXED MODE NETWORKS

One important feature of 802.11n is full backward compatibility with previous wireless standards:
legacy clients can connect to an 802.11n network, and the improved radio reception enabled by
antenna diversity means that they should perform at least as well (if not better) than when connected
to a legacy network. However, supporting legacy clients has its drawbacks. The diversity of wireless
devices and drivers already causes issues with existing 802.11g networks, which can sometimes be
held back by 802.11b clients. If the network is not well-designed, a single legacy client can slow
down the network for all users. This issue is likely to get worse with 802.11n. The standard offers so
many options that the difference between the fastest and slowest client is much more dramatic than in
802.11g. Data rates range all the way from 300 Mbps down to 1 Mbps. Because slower clients take
longer than faster clients to send the same amount of data, they tend to dominate networks that allow
random access. If all clients are allowed an equal chance to send a packet, they send equal numbers of
packets on average and so an 802.11n network could spend nearly all its time listening to slow
802.11b transmissions. The worst client dominates the airwaves and the performance of the entire
network suffers due to the slower clients.
There are two effective ways of dealing with this: Airtime Fairness and Channel Stacking.
5.4.1 Airtime Fairness

Airtime fairness is based on bit fairness, a concept originally proposed in the 1980s for wired
networks. Now implemented extensively in switched Ethernet, bit fairness ensures that all stations
connected to a network receive an equal share of the network’s capacity. Wireless networks are more
complex because different devices have different data rates and different loss rates. This is true even
in single-mode networks: One 802.11n client connected to a network might see no packet loss and
experience a full 200 Mbps, while another might be in a more noisy environment and suffer a lot of
packet loss. The unicast MAC layer of 802.11n automatically retransmits lost packets so that
SOE,CUSAT - IT
applications don’t notice them, but these retransmissions take time, lowering the data rate. For
example, if half the packets are lost, the data rate would fall by about a third So that slow clients do
not hog the airwaves, fairness in wireless networks is better measured by time than data quantity.
Instead of letting each client at a particular QoS level transmit the same amount of data, each is given
access to the airwaves for the same amount of time. Thus, a fast 802.11n client can transmit about ten
times as much data as a slower 802.11g client, just as each would in an all-802.11n or all-802.11g
network. Meru Networks first introduced Airtime Fairness into production wireless LANs in 2003,
used to prevent a legacy 802.11b device from taking over a channel in 802.11g networks. The
introduction of 802.11n makes it even more critical. Although its benefits are most important in
mixed-mode networks that combine 802.11n with legacy clients, Airtime Fairness is needed in every
wireless network. It enables reliable service in two other ways:
5.4.2 Fairness Among Clients

If multiple 802.11n clients need to send or receive traffic, all should receive the same amount of
airtime. This ensures predictable data rates: There is no use having a 200 Mbps network if one client
takes all the bandwidth and leaves others with nothing. The important metric here is the minimum
data rate of an 802.11n client. Ideally, this should be as close as possible to the average (and to the
maximum.)
For example, Novarum tests measured a total data rate of 180 Mbps when ten clients were connected
to a Meru access point, making the average throughput 18 Mbps. The minimum was 15 Mbps so the
network was fair and predictable. With another vendor’s access point, the total throughput was 140
Mbps but this was distributed very unfairly. Instead of each client getting roughly 14 Mbps, some got
a lot more and one was denied any bandwidth at all.
5.4.3 Uplink vs. Downlink fairness

As the number of devices connected to a network increases, the number of clients contending for
uplink capacity far exceeds the number of access points contending for downlink capacity. WLAN
infrastructure must be sophisticated enough to manage this ratio, ensuring that an access point is given
enough airtime to transmit packets to all clients. A system that gives the access point the same airtime
as an individual client will result in much lower downlink than uplink data rates.
5.5 POWER OVER ETHERNET

Most 802.11n access points incorporate multiple radios, each of which transmits on more than one
spatial stream. Because of the multiple transmissions, an 802.11n access point requires more power
than an 802.11a/b/g access point for the same number of radios, resulting in potential power supply
issues. Traditionally, wireless access points have been powered through Power Over Ethernet (PoE) to
avoid the need for a separate cable. The industry standard for PoE is IEEE 802.3af, in which DC
power is injected by a switch or a separate inline device and carried over a twisted-pair cable. The
nominal limit for 802.3af is 12.95W, too low for many 802.11n APs. Many vendors will claim that
their 802.11n access points can be powered by standard 802.3af. However, it’s important to check the
detail of these claims. Some may not operate at full power because the maker is assuming that they
will usually be part of a microcell network in which most access points’ power needs to be turned
down anyway. Others may not be able to use all of their antennas or support the maximum number of
spatial streams when powered by 802.3af.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
For access points that require more power than 802.3af such as those with more than two radios, the
other options are typically:
• A local DC power supply. This will generally provide the exact amount of power necessary, but it
requires an AC outlet and means that remote power management is not possible.
• The new 802.3at standard for PoE. This aims to deliver at least 30W, but is not finalized yet and
requires new LAN switches or injectors.
• Multiplexed 802.3af. This requires an access point that can support more than one cable uplink,
often for a redundant backend data connection as well as additional power.
5.6 CLIENT DESIGN ISSUES

The greatest barrier to 802.11n clients is the need for multiple antennas. As well as increasing the
BoM (bill of materials) for building each client, they also increase the physical size: the antennas used
to support MIMO must be separated by at least half a wavelength – 3 to 6 cm. at the frequencies used
by 802.11. This is simply too large for many cell phones. As a result, the Wi-Fi Alliance is certifying
phones for 802.11n support even if they include only one antenna. These do not benefit from the
performance gains of MIMO but still support other performance improvements such as channel
bonding and short guard intervals. Though they don’t run at 300 Mbps, they offer data rates at least
twice as high as those of 802.11a/g devices without any increase in size or cost. Without MIMO, the
maximum data rate is about 150 Mbps. This increase over 802.11/b/g is obviously useful for smart
phones with data capability, but also brings benefits in networks with many devices used only for
voice. Though the actual throughput requirement of most codecs is measured in kbps, the high data
rate helps voice networks by allowing a greater user density per access point, extending battery life on
the client and reducing the impact of voice on data users.
5.7 BAND AND CHANNEL SELECTION

Previous 802.11n standards were limited to either 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz, giving users no choice of band.
Either can be used in 802.11n, and not all clients support both. Combined with the need for legacy
client support, this means many deployments will need to support both.
2.4 GHz: Limited Channel Availability

The 2.4 GHz band is overwhelmingly the most popular, used in 802.11g and 802.11b. Itraditionally
had two huge benefits: lower cost client radios and longer range. The cosdifference in radios is now
disappearing, but the range difference results from the laws ophysics and so remains. Though 802.11n
increases the range and data rate at bothfrequencies, a 2.4 GHz signal will always go further than a 5
GHz signal. The big disadvantage of the 2.4 GHz band is that it is narrow and crowded, with room for
onlythree non-overlapping 20 MHz. channels. With channel bonding in 802.11n, that number
isreduced to one – a big problem for microcell architectures that require non-overlappinghannels to
avoid interference. As a result, most microcell vendors recommend that 802.11nonly be deployed at 5
GHz. The Virtual Cell can support a 40 MHz. channel at 2.4 GHz, allowing full data rate
deploymentsof 802.11n without interference. Because this only requires two of the three available
non
overlapping channels, an 802.11b/g network can also be deployed in the remaining 20 MHz band.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
5 GHz: Dynamic Frequency Selection

When the 802.11 standards were originally defined, they were restricted to a few channels a2.4 GHz.
and 5 GHz. Since then, the FCC and other national regulators have opened up morechannels around 5
GHz, expanding the spectrum available to 802.11 networks. However, manyof these channels are also
shared with other users, notably radar systems. Radar takes priorityso wireless LANs need to move
away from a channel when they detect a radar system using ita process called Dynamic Frequency
Selection. In a July 2008 research note3 ’ analyst firm Gartner found several problems with most
vendors’ implementations of DFS. Many access points ship with it switched on by default on all
channels, even those where it is not required. By using it too much, networks risk becoming
overwhelmed by frequent changes that can cascade across access points.
Switched on By Default
Though the FCC only requires DFS in certain 5 GHz channels, some access points apply it
everywhere – even at 2.4 GHz. Because DFS can degrade performance, customers need to ensure that
it is switched off except where really needed.
Ripple Effect
In networks based on a microcell architecture, retuning one access point can force all of its neighbors
to retune too because adjacent APs must use non-overlapping frequencies. In turn, all its neighbors’
neighbors will also need to retune, ultimately causing a cascade of changes throughout the network.
To make these changes, the network management system often attempts to calculate a new channel
plan in real time, a process that tends to result in coverage holes and increased interference. These
problems are more likely to occur in 802.11n than legacy networks because of the unpredictable
coverage caused by multipath effects. Another potential problem with the newly-available channels at
5 GHz is that not all equipment supports every channel. This applies to both clients and access points,
so it is critical to check specific channel support when choosing equipment. The newer channels may
not be a good choice when guest access or other clients not owned by the IT department need to
supported. As in 2.4 GHz, the Virtual Cell architecture avoids most of the problems with DFS
because it requires only one channel for each layer of coverage. Multiple channels can be used to
provide multiple layers, either network-wide or only in areas where increased coverage is needed as
shown in Figure 10.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
Figure 10: Two additional channels are in use in the area on the right, while a third provides network
wide coverage.
SECURITY
The 802.11n specification itself does not define any new security technologies as it is intended mainly
to boost data rates. However, previous standards such as 802.11i have largely solved the earlier
security issues found in wireless networks. With the right approach, wireless can actually be more
trustworthy than wired. To ensure that no holes are left open in the network, 802.1n makes the
advanced security of 802.11i mandatory. In addition, all Wi-Fi certified 802.11n products – Draft 2.0
and Draft 11.0 alike – must support WPA2, the set of interoperability tests covering 802.11i. The
former assures users that their links are secure; the latter assures buyers that equipment can be secured
easily. However, this can cause issues when supporting legacy applications.
WPA2 Mandatory
All Wi-Fi Certified 802.11n equipment supports Wi-Fi Protected Access 2 and 802.11i, with
mandatory AES encryption for all secured links. In addition, most equipment aimed at business users
supports WPA2 Enterprise, with authentication and key exchange via 802.1x. The enterprise version
is more secure than the home version for two reasons: strong per-user authentication and new keys
generated on the fly. Without WPA2 Enterprise, a permanent key is generated and shared between
many users, making the key more likely to be compromised. Because 802.11n deliberately drops
support for the older RC4 encryption algorithm, if offers only two encryption modes:
CLEAR
Traffic is not encrypted. This is useful in guest access and open networks. Organizations and end
users can still encrypt data using software-based techniques such as TLS or IPsec VPNs, but
encryption is not provided by the wireless network itself.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
AES Encrypted
AES is the algorithm specified in 802.11i. Encryption is completely transparent to the user and to the
IT department, while authentication can normally use the same client- and server- side software as on
the wired network.
Supporting Legacy Clients

Most newer clients support AES, as do all Wi-FI certified 802.11n devices. However, manylegacy
applications and devices do not. If a device does not support AES, it will be unable toconnect to an
802.11n network using its built-in encryption. This is true even if a device isphysically capable of
supporting 802.11n data speeds, and it doesn’t just exclude thenotoriously insecure WEP. It also
excludes TKIP, the form of RC4 specified by the original WPAcertification.Non-AES devices
connecting to an 802.11n network thus have two options: Don’t use encryption at all, or drop down to
802.1a/g. Because backward-compatibility is built into the standard, an 802.11n access point will still
support all the encryption options offered by the older standards, including RC4-based WEP and
TKIP. However, it will only support them at 802.11a/g data rates. A bigger problem for most
enterprises is supporting legacy 802.11a/b/g devices that lack the capability to handle 802.1x and thus
cannot use the enterprise version of WPA2. Because a network is only as secure as its weakest link,
allowing these devices to connect using pre-shared keys (or TKIP) and without enterprise-grade
authentication may open up a security hole that could be exploited by an attacker. To prevent such
exploits, enterprises need additional lines of defense beyond that provided by
Per-User Firewalls
A per-user firewall enables fine-grained control over the access rights of each device on a network,
limiting it to specific authorized activities. For example, many older 802.11 phones lack 802.1x
capability. An application firewall can ensure that devices which access the network as a legacy
phone without data capability are only able to send VoIP packets, not access other systems. For
maximum security, a per-user firewall needs to use flow signatures in addition to contents of
encrypted packets.
Physical Security
A physical barrier can prevent radio waves from leaking outside a perimeter, making a wireless
network completely undetectable. This was traditionally accomplished using radio jamming systems
or Faraday cages – large metallic walls – but is now possible using selective signal blocking
technology built into wireless networks themselves.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
Chapter 6 Real World Experiences

Products based on IEEE 802.11n Draft 2.0 draft have been shipping since September 2007, giving
enterprises across all industries nearly three years to prove the technology in real deployments. It is
already in use by thousands of users worldwide, with more adopting it every day
6.1 MORRISVILLE STATE COLLEGE: PERVASIVE COVERAGE, HIGH

PERFORMANCE
Morrisville State College in New York deployed the world’s first all-802.11n network two years ago.
It is still one of the world’s largest, providing coverage in 43 buildings as well as outdoor areas like
courtyards and the football field. It is the primary network connection for more than 3000 students,
part of a generation for whom phones have always been mobile and computers have always been
laptops. The network now handles more than 1500 simultaneous users, carrying a mix of data, voice
an video traffic. It sees speeds right up to the maximum 300 Mbps, averaging download times nin
times faster than with 802.11g. Whereas uploading a 50MB file from a laptop used to take 3 m51
seconds, it now takes only 26 seconds.
6.2 HALIFAX HEALTH: 100% RELIABILITY, PREDICTABLE AND

TRUSTWORTHY
Halifax Health has been using wireless LANs since the early 2000s, successfully covering its flagship
764-bed hospital in Datona Beach with an 802.11a/b/g network used for voice and data applications
such as barcode scanning for drug dose verification. But the legacy network proved insufficient for a
move to full electronic medical records which Halifax was implementing in a new ten-storey tower.
Though the legacy technology could theoretically reach the 24 Mbps that the EMR applications need,
real bandwidth was often much less due to microcell interference or contention for access from
multiple users. Halifax upgraded to an 802.11n network based on a Virtual Cell architecture,
blanketing the 500,000 square feet of the facility with pervasive coverage. The old network is still in
use in older parts of the building, the two coexisting with no problems. The new 802.11n network
supplies enough bandwidth for the EMR application as well as Lifelinks remote interpreting, a video
system that connects a hearing-impaired patient to a live interpreter who translates a healthcare
worker’s speech into sign language in real-time. Both the EMR application and the Lifelinks system
are hosted on “Workstations on Wheels”, carts that staff move around to wherever needed. The
hospital is also expanding its use of wireless telephony, using both Siemens VoIP phones and Vocera
badges, as well as exploring new applications such as a semi-autonomous janitorial robot. But the
SOE,CUSAT - IT
major benefit of 802.11n in a Virtual Cell is reliability: If the wireless EMR system went down,
doctors and nurses would have to resort to a time-consuming manual process. With it, they can devote
themselves fully to patient care.
6.3 THE WASHINGTON NATIONALS: VERY HIGH USER DENSITY

Opened in March 2008, Nationals Stadium is more than just the first Major League Baseball park to
offer 802.11n coverage in all areas. It is a showcase for innovation, relying on its wireless network
both to make its own operations more efficient and to improve the experience for all fans of the
Washington Nationals– whether they are on the bleachers, in the park's hospitality suites or at home
watching games through the media. The stadium’s network is available throughout the 41,88-seater
park, offering Internet access to guests as well as multiple services to the stadium’s own staff who use
Avaya phones and Symbol handheld ticket readers that can be carried to the most crowded entry
points. The readers verify each ticket's authenticity with a database at Tickets.com to eliminate
forgeries and scalping, so even a fraction of a second's delay in checking each ticket could add up to
long lines. The network is also made available to the media and to the stadium’s more than 200 food
concessions who need always-on on connectivity when verifying customer payment information.
Future plans call for "room service"-style ordering, allowing fans to buy food or drink over the
network and have it delivered to their seats so that they don't risk missing a crucial part of the game.
Summary
With thousands of customers already using it for critical applications, 802.11n is a mature and reliable
technology. Its high-performance is proven in industries including education, healthcare,
manufacturing, retail and hospitality, running data, voice and video simultaneously over networks
spanning hundreds of access points. The technology is used both indoors and outdoors, serving
laptops, phones, locator badges and client devices of all kinds. When combined with the appropriate
architectural choices, it gives wireless the speed, security and scalability of wired Ethernet – all while
realizing cost savings over legacy wired or wireless systems. With official ratification, 802.11n is
already taking over the wireless networking market on both the infrastructure and the client side. But
its true implications are broader, with continued growth likely at the expense of wired Ethernet. As
wireless now offers all the benefits of wires but with added mobility and reduced cost, an increasing
number of enterprises move to an all-wireless edge. Deploying 802.11n is more than just a matter of
replacing legacy radios. To maximize its benefits, organizations need to design networks for 802.11n
from the ground up. This means taking account of multipath effects, bonded channels and the need to
support legacy clients, as well as the standard’s full security implications and the increased demands
likely on the network. Doing so will make the network simple and trustworthy, assuring predictable
service levels for all users. By using an architecture purpose-built for 802.11n, IT departments can
ensure that users and applications receive the same performance and reliability that they expect from
wired Ethernet.
SOE,CUSAT - IT
References
 Meru Networks Powering the All-wireless Enterprise White paper :The state of 802.11n
Dated : September 2009
 Wi-Fi vs. WiMAX “Comparison of the basic features of Wi-Fi (802.11b/g) - WiMAX (802.16)”
 IEEE PPT : History and Status of IEEE 802.11.n standard
 WikiPedia : IEEE 802.11N-2009
 MIMO : http://www.timeatlas.com/term_to_learn/general/what_is_mimo
 VIDEO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDmWytRB3go
SOE,CUSAT - IT

Report 07

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report 07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 802.

11n : NEXT GENERATION NETWORK

4.6.1 Better Reception at the Access Point..................................................................................18

1.0 HIGH PERFORMANCE

Chapter 2 The State of the Standards

2.1 INNOVATIONS IN 802.11N

2.2 802.11n at the RF Layer

2.3 Antenna Diversity

2.3.1 High Performance 802.11n at the PHY Layer

2.4 Channel Bonding

2.5 More OFDM Subcarriers

2.6 Short Guard Interval

High Performance 802.11n at the MAC Layer

2.7 Frame Aggregation and Selective Retransmission

2.8 Reduced Interframe Spacing

2.9 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DRAFT 2.0 AND DRAFT 11.0

features in Draft 11.0 are:

2.9.2 Three Spatial Streams

2.9.3 Coexistence Features

Chapter 3 The State of the Market

3.1 802.11N CLIENTS

3.2 Market Size

3.3 Wireless Only Devices

3.4 INFRASTRUCTURE SIDE

3.4.1 Market Size

3.4.2 The All-Wireless Edge

Chapter 4 The Business Case for 802.11n

4.1 INCREASED CAPACITY AND PERFORMANCE

4.2 Runs All Applications

• Electronic medical record systems that need at least 24 Mbps

• High-definition video streaming, important in schools as well as in the home market

4.3 Higher User Densities

4.4 Extended Coverage

4.5 LOWER TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP

4.6 BATTERY LIFE AND POWER SAVINGS

4.6.1 Better Reception at the Access Point

4.6.2 MAC Layer Energy Savings

4.6.3 Spatial Multiplexing Power Save

4.6.4 Power Save Multi Poll

Chapter 5 Issues in 802.11n Network Design

5.1 DESIGNING THE NETWORK FOR MULTIPATH

5.2 Access Point Coverage is Unpredictable

5.3 Coverage Planning is Complicated

for themselves which access point they should connect to.

5.3.2 Virtual Cell

5.4 MIXED MODE NETWORKS

5.4.1 Airtime Fairness

5.4.2 Fairness Among Clients

5.4.3 Uplink vs. Downlink fairness

5.5 POWER OVER ETHERNET

5.6 CLIENT DESIGN ISSUES

5.7 BAND AND CHANNEL SELECTION

2.4 GHz: Limited Channel Availability

5 GHz: Dynamic Frequency Selection

Supporting Legacy Clients

Chapter 6 Real World Experiences

6.1 MORRISVILLE STATE COLLEGE: PERVASIVE COVERAGE, HIGH

6.2 HALIFAX HEALTH: 100% RELIABILITY, PREDICTABLE AND

6.3 THE WASHINGTON NATIONALS: VERY HIGH USER DENSITY

You might also like