6 ms·

Wi-Fi Alliance is naming the not-yet-complete IEEE 802.11ax standard as Wi-Fi 6, with ac being 5, and n being 4. One can guess then a is supposed to 1, b as 2,

Wi-Fi Alliance is naming the not-yet-complete IEEE 802.11ax standard as Wi-Fi 6, with ac being 5, and n being 4. One can guess then a is supposed to 1, b as 2, and g as 3, but this isn't mentioned anywhere I can see. As far as I can tell, all of these numbers are new. At least this naming is a good deal clearer than HDMI's confusing version and feature mix or USB's Speed names. What isn't clear is how much control the Wi-Fi Alliance has over the tech industry and how their branding is used, but it looks like they might be able to compel a lot of companies to adopt this new naming. They've got standards for logos on things like your computer or phone, so we'll see if these start getting adopted by major manufacturers.

Nullabillity 8y ago
When was the last time you saw a WiFi logo? The only time I can remember was as one of those stickers on a HP laptop in 2005.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Not a logo, but lots of cell phone manufacturers like to list which Wi-Fi standard they support because they can then advertise “gigabit” downloads and the like.
kbenson 8y ago
> Wi-Fi Alliance is naming the not-yet-complete IEEE 802.11ax standard as Wi-Fi 6, with ac being 5, and n being 4. One can guess then a is supposed to 1, b as 2, and g as 3, but this isn't mentioned anywhere I can see. Oh, I'm so happy it's a number that seems to correspond to something (as long as the next one is 7 or 8 or some integer slightly larger than 6). I look at wifi tech so rarely that I've mostly skipped a standard once or twice, but that just means I'm confused when I look at what's being offered. 802.11n? 802.11ac? What's better? If it's not as clear cut, which one came out later and is likely to be backwards compatible with the prior one? If it was single letter increasing without large gaps, that might have been easier, but from what I remember, b wasn't strictly better than a when they were both first out (from looking at the info now, a has a higher rate, but suffers from obstructions and other interference more). > At least this naming is a good deal clearer than HDMI's confusing version and feature mix or USB's Speed names. Yes. As I understand it, USB is particularly bad where there's often confusion over the connectors, cable, and protocol, especially at the USB-c level.
- Gaelan 8y ago
  ac is later and presumably better. No idea if there are any trade offs
  - chipperyman573 8y ago
    AC only supports 5gz, which has significantly worse range and is impacted much more by walls or other solid objects. But if there aren't a problem it's generally better
    - mrb 8y ago
      "AC only supports 5gz." That's not an accurate statement. "802.11ac" denotes a set of features, and many of them apply to and benefit the 2.4 GHz band. For example 256QAM encoding boosts the max data rate by 20 or 33% on this band for, respectively, 20 and 40 MHz channels.
      - chipperyman573 8y ago
        Interesting. How come all the consumer routers I've used have always required 5ghz to use AC capabilities? Are the rest of the ac features enterprisey? Or have I just not interacted with enough routers to see these?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - oasisbob 8y ago
        Isn't 256QAM on 2.4GHz a proprietary feature? https://www.cwnp.com/forums/posts?postNum=307358 https://www.cwnp.com/forums/posts?postNum=307358 I always heard that 802.11ac was 5GHz only, and that on dual-band, stations would stick with 802.11n for 2.4GHz
      - DesertBattery 8y ago
        > 802.11ac is a 5-GHz-only technology https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-3600-series/white-paper-c11-713103.pdf https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/wirele...
colanderman 8y ago
Hm, I would expect 802.11-1997 to be 1. Is that 0? Or does it share a number with b, because they're the same technology? Or is it 1, and a and g share a number because they're the same technology? Or do a and b share a number because they were released simultaneously? (This is, of course, a Very Important Question.)
- gonzo 8y ago
  > Or does it share a number with b, because they're the same technology? 802.11b is part of 802.11-1999. 802.11-1997 describes the older Direct Spread (DS) and Frequency-Hopping (FS) standards in 2.4GHz. 802.11a and 802.11b were both ratified on 16 September 1999. 802.11g wasn't ratified until 12 June 2003. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Reports/802.11_Timelines.htm http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Reports/802.11_Timelin...
  - colanderman 8y ago
    Right, 802.11b extended DSSS used by 802.11-1997 for 1 and 2 Mbps through 5.5 and 11 Mbps rates. No other Wi-Fi standards used DSSS.
- kingbirdy 8y ago
  I think this is why they didn't give the numbers for the early versions
- WorldMaker 8y ago
  I think 802.11-1997 works as 0 in this case. The implication from the Wi-Fi Alliance seems to be they are counting consumer hardware generations, and there doesn't seem to have been much consumer hardware that was directly 802.11-1997 (it took b to get consumer adoption). Which is why the order I've heard that makes the most sense is 1 (b), 2 (a), 3 (g), because that was roughly the consumer hardwave waves, with the brief (a) hardware wave the fun out-of-order one.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    a and b were specced at the same time though, so it's really weird to look at a+b+g as anything other than two generations.
rythie 8y ago
> Wi-Fi Alliance is naming the not-yet-complete IEEE 802.11ax standard as Wi-Fi 6, with ac being 5, and n being 4. One can guess then a is supposed to 1, b as 2, and g as 3, but this isn't mentioned anywhere I can see. Most 802.11b and 802.11g devices didn't support 802.11a (due to it requiring 5Ghz), so I'm guessing version 1 is 802.11 and 802.11a isn't part of the version numbers.
- cesarb 8y ago
  I would put 802.11a as 3 together with 802.11g, since they have the same rates (and are basically the same tech in a different band, 802.11g feels like 802.11a ported to 2.4GHz plus some extra compatibility stuff).
  - WorldMaker 8y ago
    It sounds like the Wi-Fi Alliance doesn't particularly care which one is 1, 2, and 3. They've only strongly defined 4 (n), 5 (ac), and 6 (ax). [1] It also sounds like they don't think enough devices are left in the wild of a, b, g, to worry about branding them. The best description I've heard for 1-3 was to use roughly the consumer hardware adoption curve which was 1 (b), [briefly] 2 (a), 3 (g). [1] https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
all_blue_chucks 8y ago
Does that make the original 802.11 "Wi-Fi 0"?

Nullabillity 8y ago

When was the last time you saw a WiFi logo? The only time I can remember was as one of those stickers on a HP laptop in 2005.

saagarjha 8y ago
Not a logo, but lots of cell phone manufacturers like to list which Wi-Fi standard they support because they can then advertise “gigabit” downloads and the like.

kbenson 8y ago

> Wi-Fi Alliance is naming the not-yet-complete IEEE 802.11ax standard as Wi-Fi 6, with ac being 5, and n being 4. One can guess then a is supposed to 1, b as 2, and g as 3, but this isn't mentioned anywhere I can see. Oh, I'm so happy it's a number that seems to correspond to something (as long as the next one is 7 or 8 or some integer slightly larger than 6). I look at wifi tech so rarely that I've mostly skipped a standard once or twice, but that just means I'm confused when I look at what's being offered. 802.11n? 802.11ac? What's better? If it's not as clear cut, which one came out later and is likely to be backwards compatible with the prior one? If it was single letter increasing without large gaps, that might have been easier, but from what I remember, b wasn't strictly better than a when they were both first out (from looking at the info now, a has a higher rate, but suffers from obstructions and other interference more). > At least this naming is a good deal clearer than HDMI's confusing version and feature mix or USB's Speed names. Yes. As I understand it, USB is particularly bad where there's often confusion over the connectors, cable, and protocol, especially at the USB-c level.

Gaelan 8y ago
ac is later and presumably better. No idea if there are any trade offs
- chipperyman573 8y ago
  AC only supports 5gz, which has significantly worse range and is impacted much more by walls or other solid objects. But if there aren't a problem it's generally better
  - mrb 8y ago
    "AC only supports 5gz." That's not an accurate statement. "802.11ac" denotes a set of features, and many of them apply to and benefit the 2.4 GHz band. For example 256QAM encoding boosts the max data rate by 20 or 33% on this band for, respectively, 20 and 40 MHz channels.
    - chipperyman573 8y ago
      Interesting. How come all the consumer routers I've used have always required 5ghz to use AC capabilities? Are the rest of the ac features enterprisey? Or have I just not interacted with enough routers to see these?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - oasisbob 8y ago
      Isn't 256QAM on 2.4GHz a proprietary feature? https://www.cwnp.com/forums/posts?postNum=307358 https://www.cwnp.com/forums/posts?postNum=307358 I always heard that 802.11ac was 5GHz only, and that on dual-band, stations would stick with 802.11n for 2.4GHz
    - DesertBattery 8y ago
      > 802.11ac is a 5-GHz-only technology https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-3600-series/white-paper-c11-713103.pdf https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/wirele...

colanderman 8y ago

Hm, I would expect 802.11-1997 to be 1. Is that 0? Or does it share a number with b, because they're the same technology? Or is it 1, and a and g share a number because they're the same technology? Or do a and b share a number because they were released simultaneously? (This is, of course, a Very Important Question.)

gonzo 8y ago
> Or does it share a number with b, because they're the same technology? 802.11b is part of 802.11-1999. 802.11-1997 describes the older Direct Spread (DS) and Frequency-Hopping (FS) standards in 2.4GHz. 802.11a and 802.11b were both ratified on 16 September 1999. 802.11g wasn't ratified until 12 June 2003. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Reports/802.11_Timelines.htm http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Reports/802.11_Timelin...
- colanderman 8y ago
  Right, 802.11b extended DSSS used by 802.11-1997 for 1 and 2 Mbps through 5.5 and 11 Mbps rates. No other Wi-Fi standards used DSSS.
kingbirdy 8y ago
I think this is why they didn't give the numbers for the early versions
WorldMaker 8y ago
I think 802.11-1997 works as 0 in this case. The implication from the Wi-Fi Alliance seems to be they are counting consumer hardware generations, and there doesn't seem to have been much consumer hardware that was directly 802.11-1997 (it took b to get consumer adoption). Which is why the order I've heard that makes the most sense is 1 (b), 2 (a), 3 (g), because that was roughly the consumer hardwave waves, with the brief (a) hardware wave the fun out-of-order one.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  a and b were specced at the same time though, so it's really weird to look at a+b+g as anything other than two generations.

rythie 8y ago

> Wi-Fi Alliance is naming the not-yet-complete IEEE 802.11ax standard as Wi-Fi 6, with ac being 5, and n being 4. One can guess then a is supposed to 1, b as 2, and g as 3, but this isn't mentioned anywhere I can see. Most 802.11b and 802.11g devices didn't support 802.11a (due to it requiring 5Ghz), so I'm guessing version 1 is 802.11 and 802.11a isn't part of the version numbers.

cesarb 8y ago
I would put 802.11a as 3 together with 802.11g, since they have the same rates (and are basically the same tech in a different band, 802.11g feels like 802.11a ported to 2.4GHz plus some extra compatibility stuff).
- WorldMaker 8y ago
  It sounds like the Wi-Fi Alliance doesn't particularly care which one is 1, 2, and 3. They've only strongly defined 4 (n), 5 (ac), and 6 (ax). [1] It also sounds like they don't think enough devices are left in the wild of a, b, g, to worry about branding them. The best description I've heard for 1-3 was to use roughly the consumer hardware adoption curve which was 1 (b), [briefly] 2 (a), 3 (g). [1] https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

all_blue_chucks 8y ago

Does that make the original 802.11 "Wi-Fi 0"?