digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

It looks like 802.11n is good enough to chase Ethernet from the enterprise

arstechnica.com — A new report suggests that the we're at the "beginning of the end" for wired Ethernet networks due to the promise of 802.11n and its faster speeds.

Who dugg this? Made popular Aug 30, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

170 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • FatHed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+157I'm going to disagree. Wires provide a lot more than just signal quality.
  • Cowfrommars, on 10/10/2007, -0/+80I don't think so. Wired networks are much more reliable, and more secure.
  • mobilehavoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+66What a bunch of crap, they obviously aren't running Gigabit Ethernet or 10 Gigabit Ethernet...lets see wireless-N beat that along with all the security that goes with it.
  • strictnein, on 10/10/2007, -1/+46Buy a cat
  • MaynardJK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+33I've seen cats chew on cables too.
  • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29i like turtles.
  • nusuni, on 10/10/2007, -13/+42Wires = mice chew them up, they are a pain in the arse, they are icky, but are generally faster.

    Wireless = possibility of causing cancer, humidity and other weather conditions can quickly kill signal, don't guarantee that you'll get even 10% of the advertised speed, but are easier to set up.

    Technology sucks.
  • nullx42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30Buy a ***** turtle then.
  • strictnein, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Buy a dog
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22I'm with you on this one. But I don't have a 802.11n draft 2.0 router. I do have a RangeMax 240 and the tranfer speeds are amazing and it's damn reliable, but it still doesn't hold a candle to my gigabit wired network.
  • MikeWanDo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20I've seen dogs chew on cables too.
  • pcassell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Agreed. Wireless has one problem - its a shared medium. That 802.11n speed is great for one host, but adding hosts reduces the bandwidth significantly, much like a hub based network. Switched Ethernet networks do not have this problem. We are a ways off from wireless only networks.
  • breckinshire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Dad?
  • LetsGoHawks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20I'll agree as well. Even though wireless security is pretty darned good, there's still just too much risk for some industries to change over anytime soon.

    Besides, there is so much 100Mb wired in place right now that just keeps on working and is plenty fast for where it's at, and 1Gb is getting cheaper all the time for the new stuff.... the wires just aren't going to disappear anytime soon.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20I've read your comment 15 times now and I still can't figure out what the ***** you're saying.
  • avisgoth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18As a helpdesk manager, even the thought of implementing wide scale wireless to our end users makes me shudder.
  • vernsan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Let me get my frequency jammer.
  • superheroboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Wireless is infinitely harder for end users to figure out. I doubt it would save IT helpdesk any time.
  • windowsrookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Wi-fi never tastes as good as fiber.
  • WarpFox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16It's a lot harder to remotely hack into a network that doesn't have a wireless access point.

    It's impossible if said network isn't connected to the internet.
  • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Whats their definition of an enterprise? This certainly would never be deployed in a datacenter. I cant imagine any financial institution having their client traffic going across the air. Who hard would it be for someone to disrupt their network?
  • TomAce, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Hence the term "remotely."
  • BobMysterioso, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11And how did the experts get in the woodworks? Wireless Radiation, thats how. It seems only fitting they help us out now that we've discovered what mutated them into the paneling in the first place.
  • takeda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Then buy a toothless dog.
  • compgeek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10I don't think wifi will ever take over in a business environment no matter how fast it gets due to security issues. however in the home networking segment it's already getting 100% of the new installs that I do (computer tech by trade) there are some guys I know that have wired networks but even then their networks are not entirely wired. for home use though wireless is where it's at. with WPA2 most casual crackers that want into an access point will simply pass by any that have WPA2 knowing it will take too long to crack. they will go after WEP networks or ones with no security at all. only real concern for a home user of wifi is the interference issue from 2.5GHz cordless phones etc.
  • fjc8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10My building at work upgraded to Gigabit Ethernet not too long ago. I don't think there's a single person in the entire building that would advise switching to wireless for anything more serious than checking your email during meetings.
  • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10"Wireless is so much easier to work with as far as the wires go."

    I agree. I find the wireless wires so much easier to work with.
  • manstein01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10No need. Most cordless phone will do. Imagine bringing down a corporate network by pressing the "channel" button.
  • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I've seen turtles use DSL
  • pcpimpster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10The day i switch my company's network to all wireless is the day i ***** an egg and something actually hatches from it.
  • TexanPsycho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Seriously, if you've got a mouse problem then don't blame it on a cable.
  • kamikaze87, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9mine is 1.21gw
  • bdhughes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9i work in the IT world, mostly in offices where a database of some sort is running from the server, whether it be sql or faircom or what have you and i can guarantee you that the vendor of said database app will tell you to knock that crap off immediately or they can't support you due to database corruption.
    you may be surprised at how fickle they are! wires are a pain for sure, but for signal strength, security and quality they can't be beat. yet.
  • Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11unless you walk into the building.
  • BobMysterioso, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Do you often ***** eggs that yield nothing? If this is the case, you should probably consult the family practitioner - thats not normal. Maybe others haven't told you, but the amount of eggs that are supposed to come from your ass is zero. Thats right, even one ass-egg is too many.
  • sandbird, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Expanding on "what's their definition of an enterprise": I work at a newspaper. We have nearly 1000 computers. Nothing is stored locally; everything is on servers. This includes massive graphic files. And the printers are shared. Gigabit ethernet is the minimum we can run just to get by; imagine one news page with 150MB of images coming off of four different severs, all going through a RIP and then to a platesetter. This is daily work, and something that wifi won't be able to keep up with.
  • elipabst, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8If it's raining inside your office building then you have larger problems than your wireless range.
  • NormanNormal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Exactly, wireless will never replace wired in the enterprise for a multitude of reasons.
  • NitroNeo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Hogwash!!! Here's 6 top reasons why Wireless 802.11(abgn) won't replace Ethernet anytime soon!

    1. Wireless still requires wires for Comm. (included cost)
    2. Wireless still requires additional wires for Power. (unless your standard is POE on all switches in your TR's its additional cost)
    3. POE Switches use more power, generate more heat, increase HVAC Load in TRs (additional cooling costs for construction)
    4. Wireless shares bandwidth (greater range=more users=even lower throughput) The only to contradict this bandwidth problem is more AP's (read picocells) which increases cost and wires again.
    5. Wireless freely broadcasts RF (RF is not acceptable for secure connections and limited on bandwidth & frequencies)
    6. VoWLAN (Are you Insane, really?) Let's get stable and reliable VoIP before we even approach starting VoWLAN. Dropped packets and latency practically make VoIP unusable in many situations. We are talking Layer 3 switches & Packet Prioritization, come on. Many LARGE Universities don't even have this implemented, and you expect Corporate to lead the way?

    I'm not going to spend any more time on this concept. Eric Bangeman should loose (his/her) job over publishing such an article, without doing the proper research. Here is a thought, take the time to understand the technology before you start flapping your gums about it.
  • ravenber, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"[A]n 802.11n network can be made almost as secure as Ethernet, but that security will come at a greater cost than for a wired Ethernet network."
    So, what they're saying is that if security is your main concern, it's still much cheaper to just install plain old copper? What a crock. Meanwhile, business will see headlines like this and go ahead and install the wireless network without knowing the consequences. Oh well, more jobs for people like me.
  • CorpT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yeah, let me know when you can power my phone over the air. Sounds like every other "x is going to kill y" where x is some new untested technology and y is an older reliable technology.
  • protogenxl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7What are they smoking?
    Marketing and Graphics departments would slow to a crawl using even the fastest draft N system.
    Also wireless systems don't have the range to cross a corporate campus by themselves so you always have to tie wireless AP together with what? Cable!
  • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I love Wireless N + gigabit wired. The best of both worlds. And there's really no way offices are going to go wireless anytime soon. What a BS article.
  • longbow486, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7security wise:
    WiFi < Ether < Fiber
  • ryanyogan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Until you work in an environment that is built for hurricanes with 2 foot thick cinder block walls throughout, then wireless does not look so good, as well as peace of mind of someone sitting out front your building that is attempting to gain access to your server. We use wireless on our external networks for simple internet browsing, they are wide open and work nicely, but wouldn't touch them for our internal network
  • bobcrotch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Someone mentions cancer from wireless and all of a sudden medical experts come out of the woodworks.
  • nettomonstrum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I agree with everyone who disagreed with this. I work at a very large datacenter and there's no way in hell we'd ever consider doing *anything* wireless, not even staff workstations.
  • mabhatter, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I'd say Enterprise networks will remain wired... new construction will be Fiber to the Desktop (or office cell) anyway.

    That said, small and medium business will eat this up. 50% of business is small business...under 50 employees, that's the perfect match for this improvement as they don't have big bucks to string thousands of feet of cable and need flexibility in network layout. They're not big enough targets for hackers as they don't have any money or tech to steal so security isn't the most important thing in SMB networks, it's cost.
  • RedClaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So, we'll give up the inherent security of an end-to-end physical connection for the ambiguity and easily exploited standards of the 802.11 spec just because it's athletically pleasing and convenient?

    I'm sorry, I've designed public use wi-fi networks, private networks and enterprise level infrastructure. This is completely, totally, gee-golly-what-the-hell asinine. If an enterprise implements a totally wireless infrastructure, they might as well use social security numbers and dates of birth for name tags and leave doors unlocked at night too.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 173 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.