'Wi-Fi Direct' to Simplify Peer-to-Peer Wireless Networking

[nkawtg72]

i know this is totally off topic, but does this mean that there is the potential for online gaming on Consoles and PCs a lot better since there theoretically doesn't need to be a host... in addition i would love to be able to wirelessly sync my iphone, and as a funny side note a fly landed on my time capsule and died... must be that hot lol

unless i missed something, i don't see that this has any impact with online services such as that.

this technology is focused on device to device connections as they relate to devices which find themselves within WiFi range of each other, and without the need for a router, or either of the two (or more) devices, to create an ad-hoc network first before they can begin communication.

 

[apfhex]

how is this any different to "create a computer to computer wireless network" from the wifi menu?

- Improved security (AFAIK it's limited to WEP right now at least on my Macs).
- one-to-one connections, probably more like making a bluetooth connection between devices rather than a network for the world to see. I get the impression from the article that this won't create 100's of new wifi networks to bug you while sitting at the coffee shop like people seem to think.
- "all of the [other] features of standard Wi-Fi networks", whatever those may be.

 

[EagerDragon]

So in the case a network tower is down, they can possibly use this to form a vast web of interconnected phones.

I wonder how you manage security when your company no longer has a single WDS service for it's whole area, and every single employee has a Wi-Fi phone turned on and you're sitting in your office, trying to wade through the 50 wireless networks thanks to this new development.

A lot of large companies disable the ability to connect to other computers without the interveening router. They also disable the ability to create local shares (on your workstation/laptop) and instead allow shares that are server side where they can log the access and control who can get to the data.

If the tower is down and this is not disabled by the company then you will be able to connect to your peers but you still not connected to the company network and not connected to the Internet. In a sense you have a large network that is isolated from everything else.

This can place data on those laptops, and workstations at risk since anyone can connect and see your shares (assuming you have any).

The announcement also mentioned WPA2, which would mean that you can encrypt the connection so others can not listen to the traffic but that probably means all parties need to agree to use a shared key. So there is the possibility that the key will be agreed upon at the time the connection is made and that each connection will have a different key.

If the key is manualy agreed upon, it is likely to be a weak key that can be easily broken because most individuals are not going to bother to create a strong key to share with each other.

I think this is more for the iPhone and other devices that need to share data with a Mac or PC or for 2 gaming iPhones.

Without connection to the Internet and no connection to the enterprise network, the value of this is limited in my opinion.

 

[jragosta]

how is this any different to "create a computer to computer wireless network" from the wifi menu?

This story has to be grossly over simplified, because ad-hoc Wi-Fi networks have existed ever since Wi-Fi was created.

I'm pretty sure they mean a zero-config protocol, and not just ad-hoc.

The article addressed that:

"While some Wi-Fi devices are already able to support ad hoc wireless networks, the practice is limited in security and other features and is not officially part of the certified Wi-Fi standards. Wi-Fi Direct will include all of the features of standard Wi-Fi networks without the need to connect via a wireless base station."

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Well it's about time.

The absurdity of a computer being able to do all the humungously complex things they can do, and having dozens of communications protocols with other devices, but not have any way for two of them to talk directly to each other without building an entire network between them... is absolutely idiotic.

 

[nkawtg72]

a good comparison here would be to look at the differences between the architecture of USB and Firewire.

FireWire, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer


Hi-Speed USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower data flow control)

while the speed comparisons aren't important here, what is important is that WiFi Direct would in many cases cut back on the amount of hardware needed and configuration needed, for two or more devices to be able to connect and communicate with one another over WiFi.


edit:
in my comparison Firewire being similar to WiFi Direct and USB being similar to traditional WiFi

 

[hiimamac]

When it started putting Airport (802.11b-g-n) in it's computers and mobile devices. Those are all WiFi certified.

jW

You create an ad hoc network when your teethering your iPhone, jailbrocken of course, with programs like PDAnet. Just FYI. I see this as playing a large rol in teethering.
Peace.

 

[star-fish]

Well it's about time.

The absurdity of a computer being able to do all the humungously complex things they can do, and having dozens of communications protocols with other devices, but not have any way for two of them to talk directly to each other without building an entire network between them... is absolutely idiotic.

Bluetooth?

 

[uaecasher]

better multiplying would be best thing in iPod game industry

 

[TonyHoyle]

better multiplying would be best thing in iPod game industry

Are gamers particularly held back by their lack of maths skills then?

 

[Digitalclips]

cryptic code name for sure. LOL

 

[dXTC]

So in the case a network tower is down, they can possibly use this to form a vast web of interconnected phones.

I've been playing with a new toy called SONOS, it's a multi-zone wireless music distribution system for your house. It brings along its own proprietary wireless network which is based on 802.11n. From my understanding, it's a mesh network, meaning each unit acts as a repeater for the whole network. The more units you have going, the stronger the signal to each one (as it talks to its neighboring unit, and not necessarily the wireless router) and in so doing you also increase the range of your total network every time you add a node.

This development would make mesh networking setup super-simple, and would be excellent in a crisis situation. A simplified telecom mesh network was created in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and proved extremely useful for recovery officials in the first days after the storm.

In fact, this might even be thought of as the first steps to "cloud networking".

 

[philitup23]

I'm not gonna lie. I still don't get it. Does this mean that if I'm in New York and my friend is in California, my iPhone and theirs could connect? Or does it mean we have to be in the same location (with no wifi even) to be able to connect?

 

[kingtj]

Right off, I can think of one extra feature ....

Wireless base stations practically all allow you to restrict access based on the MAC address of the wireless card attempting the connection.

This would be nice to have for "peer to peer" connections, too. If you know you're only interested in connecting, say, your mobile phone to your notebook, you could make sure both devices are aware of each other's MAC addresses. Then, in addition to whatever wireless security you enabled (WEP, WPA, etc.), the MAC addresses would have to match as well.

- Improved security (AFAIK it's limited to WEP right now at least on my Macs).
- one-to-one connections, probably more like making a bluetooth connection between devices rather than a network for the world to see. I get the impression from the article that this won't create 100's of new wifi networks to bug you while sitting at the coffee shop like people seem to think.
- "all of the [other] features of standard Wi-Fi networks", whatever those may be.

 

[CFreymarc]

Direct Wi Fi nothing new

This just formalized what the Linux cowboys have been doing for years.

Linux OS users have been doing direct WiFi for at least ten years since they had access to the source code down to the metal. However, like any new technology, there is a lack of standards and lack of a good user experience.

One more ranch getting plowed over with condos and a strip mall taking its place.

 

[kingtj]

No, it's simple, really ....

Right now, if you enable wi-fi on your notebook or other device, it has to find a "base station" to connect with (meaning an Apple Airport device, for example, or a Linksys, D-Link or Netgear wireless router). The "base station" then shares the Internet connection it has already established, AND acts like a "bridge", allowing multiple devices that connect to it to see each other and share drives or printers with each other.

This article is saying they plan to add a new option to the "standards" for wireless, so devices will have a way to connect directly to other devices, as long as they're within the range of each other's wireless signals.

(And as some people pointed out, you could *already* do this now, with a little more effort configuring things first, and with some limitations on the types of wireless security you could put in place while doing it, etc. But it was never really standardized as an "officially allowed" way to use wi-fi either.)

I'm not gonna lie. I still don't get it. Does this mean that if I'm in New York and my friend is in California, my iPhone and theirs could connect? Or does it mean we have to be in the same location (with no wifi even) to be able to connect?

 

[ChrisA]

How is this any different than going into a shopping mall or airport or just walking down a major city street and being inundated with 10's of "free" Wi-Fi hotspots?

Ad Hoc wifi networks have been around from the beginning. That technology is not new. What is new, I think, is a way to automatically configure those networks. But we don't know the details yet. If I had to guess, I'd gues the every device would NOT automatically connect to every other device within range. More then likely a user would deside to connect two devices and then initiate the process by finding the other device in a menu of in-range devices. Some devices, let's call them "stupid devices" like a mouse or a keyboard would have to blindly accept any offer to connect but other devices, let's call them "smart" like a phone or a computer would have to have a user approve a connection. I can envision a rule where two "stupid" devices are never allowed to connect to each other.

But we will have to wait and see

What's new here is just the user interface and the easy to configure part, the rest is old news

As for security -- all the data sent over a typical HiFi connection air are encrypted. No one who is not part of your ad hoc network can de-crypt the data.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

Well now, in addition to those, every single smartphone has that same ability. So you're walking down the city street past a Starbucks, you'll get Starbucks and maybe the bookstore next door. BUT now, every businessman who is waiting at that same starbucks can have his BB/iPhone be a network of it's own. See it now?

And what is inherently wrong with all of these devices being available? By using a technology like this you can extend the network by simply using devices that are on the network. Think about your 3g phone. You may not have any LOS to a tower but another 3g phone nearby does, so then you can use that phones LOS to get your phone working. Now think about all of the phones that are out there and how quickly network coverage could expand by simply using all of the phones 'walking' around.

 

[philitup23]

Right now, if you enable wi-fi on your notebook or other device, it has to find a "base station" to connect with (meaning an Apple Airport device, for example, or a Linksys, D-Link or Netgear wireless router). The "base station" then shares the Internet connection it has already established, AND acts like a "bridge", allowing multiple devices that connect to it to see each other and share drives or printers with each other.

This article is saying they plan to add a new option to the "standards" for wireless, so devices will have a way to connect directly to other devices, as long as they're within the range of each other's wireless signals.

(And as some people pointed out, you could *already* do this now, with a little more effort configuring things first, and with some limitations on the types of wireless security you could put in place while doing it, etc. But it was never really standardized as an "officially allowed" way to use wi-fi either.)

So what's bluetooth? Isn't bluetooth what you described?

 

[psychoclown420]

Does the word ZUNE ring a bell? kinda reminds of what they were pushing. The only problem is that nobody has one so no-one can share anything with anyone while skiing. If we get ipods and iphones to get some of zune's many features, then zune won't have a chance at anything.

 

[MacFly123]

Perhaps this would allow wireless iPhone syncing? That would be great.

And wireless file sharing and printing I am excited for iPhone OS 4.0 and iPhone 4th Gen next year!

 

[MWPULSE]

So what's bluetooth? Isn't bluetooth what you described?

yes it is. But (and someone can correct me if im wrong here) but the wireless cards wireless B/G/N are alot faster than the bluetooth chip. So you should be able to send more data, faster, further than say bluetooth for instance.

PTP

 

[wizard]

Nice that there seems to be an effort to nail a standard.

In this case standards are good and this could lead to a lot of product development. More to the point it allows the replacement of BlueTooth on some devices, the unfortunate thing is that Bluetooth hasn't live up to its expectations and is capability limited. Bluetooth is better off as a low speed low power solution for headsets, ice and other slow devices.

Doing peer to peer is really forward looking and I do hope that Apple is deeply involved in this. It won't replace base station hub based solutions but could be very useful for people on the go, gaming and other social activities.

Think about gaming for a minute, this would mean no setup requirements or limitations based on base station location. In fact I could see a whole new genre of games where the participants are physically active and engaged with one and another. The big problem here is the current platforms like Touch are to constrained RAM wise.

Dave

 

[kdarling]

... Think about your 3g phone. You may not have any LOS to a tower but another 3g phone nearby does, so then you can use that phones LOS to get your phone working.

No thanks. I don't want my battery run down just because someone with a bad signal is inadvertently using my phone as a relay.

Now think about all of the phones that are out there and how quickly network coverage could expand by simply using all of the phones 'walking' around.

Yeah, just imagine the bill for the poor SOB whose phone is the only one actually hooked to the cell tower.

 

[hiimamac]

Are gamers particularly held back by their lack of maths skills then?

Have you ever known mac or pc REAL tech consultants?
They have great math skills and most are gamers.


Peace