> Cover Story> Full Story
LAN - it's happening at last
Birje is Country Manager (India & SAARC), Enterasys
Networks. He has been with Cabletron for the past three
years and and has been the key figure behind successfully
transforming Cabletron Systems Indian operations
to Enterasys Networks after internationally, Cabletron
Systems was transformed into four independent operating
& Sullivan's latest market research documents says that
the Wireless LAN (WLAN) market place will be worth $5 billion
by 2005. Currently, wireless access points (base stations)
retail at prices between $200 and $1,400. Over 100 vendors
sell WLAN technology, and you can purchase a NIC (Network
Interface Card) for less than $100. With so many facilitating
factors, the $5 billion figure and consequently a huge installed
base of WLANs will certainly not be far from reality.
It's not difficult to understand what is fuelling this growth.
WLANs are a convenient plug and play technology, easily deployable
without the underlying costs associated with cabling infrastructure.
In times when organizations are implementing technologies
that enable mobile and ubiquitous access throughout the enterprise,
WLANs provide the perfect fit. The fact that employees can
access company resources without the constraints of a wired
network connection, provides companies with more productive
and efficient workforces.
Developing standards are at best a long and detailed process,
and they are supposed to create a clear direction for the
industry and customers to follow. Lately however, in the field
of wireless technologies, the standards themselves have become
quite confusing to an outside observer. The world was a much
simpler place when we only had IEEE 802.11b wireless products
to worry about.
So what is all the confusion about? Anyone who thought there
would be a nice and smooth transition from 802.11b to something
like 802.11a, will be quite surprised. Originally the plan
was (for most vendors and customers) to move from an 802.11b
technology to 802.11a technology. The new technology would
provide higher bandwidth (from 11Mbps to 54Mbps), and at the
same time allow wireless data transmission to move to a less-crowded
area of the radio spectrum (from the crowded 2.4 GHz band
to the less crowded 5 GHz band). If this had happened smoothly,
the wireless world would not be as confusing as it is now.
A few things came up over the last couple of years, which
introduced a certain level of uncertainty into the plan. We
discovered that WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy) was not as
secure as everyone thought. This was not an earth shattering
revelation to many people in the industry, but it did catch
some people off guard. The reality is that WEP was designed
only to provide the same expectation of privacy as a wired
network. The fact that WEP succeeded even at this level is
A more valid concern may be to look for the number of organizations
that are utilizing any sort of security measures. As part
of the Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) standard, wireless networks
can advertise (broadcast) their network names to make them
easy to find and join. This advertisement is called the SSID
(Service Set Identifier). The first step in providing some
form of security would be to refrain from broadcasting this
It is smart to choose a name that cannot easily be guessed.
Many organizations that set up wireless networks do not turn
on any sort of security, and they allow the name of their
network to be broadcasted to anyone who cares to listen for
it. To address this within the standards, the IEEE 802.11i
sub-committee was formed. Their goal is to provide a standard
interoperable way to secure wireless data. In the meantime,
there are a number of proprietary vendor solutions that aim
to solve the same problem. While many of these solutions are
better than nothing, they will not be as good as the standards-based
The next bit of uncertainty centers on what the "next"
technology should be. At last count there were ten different
options for wireless data transmission, other than 802.11b.
Why so many? Good question. It seems that every vendor and
consortium has a different idea to solve the same basic problem,
that is how to transport data via radio transmission, in a
way that is both secure and efficient, at a high data rate.
If there was only one answer the world would be a simpler
place. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point
of view), there are many valid ways to solve this problem.
Let's look at a few of these.
The first place to look is at the technology that is closest
to 802.11b. Most people would think that this is 802.11a,
but that's not the case. A very contentious standard, 802.11g,
is closer in technology to 802.11b. IEEE 802.11g is based
on doing a higher data rate (starting at 22Mbps) in the same
frequency spectrum (2.4 GHz) as 802.11b.
There are a few incompatible ways for a vendor to provide
an 802.11g solution. This means that you could potentially
(some day in the future, because none are shipping right now)
buy a solution to provide 802.11g from two different vendors.
Both sets of equipment could conform to the 802.11g standard,
but the two sets of equipment would not necessarily work together
at any of the data rates past 11Mbps. At 11Mbps the solutions
should be compatible with existing 802.11b Wi-Fi compliant
solutions. This point was one of the few things that members
of the standards body agreed to. Someday there will probably
be a single market winner in the 802.11g race, but today it
is far from certain which technology that will be.
The next set of technologies that should be examined are the
ones that are currently being promoted and are considered
fringe technologies at this point. They are fringe technologies
from the point-of-view of serious consideration for the enterprise
data network, because they lack many of the features that
an enterprise data network requires. These technologies include
the likes of HyperLAN 1 and 2, Bluetooth, Ultra-Wideband,
Wide Band Frequency Hopping, and HomeRF. While none of these
technologies have any real presence within the mainstream,
with the possible exception of Bluetooth, they are all trying
to gain wireless market share. All these technologies have
some technical merit, and may be a good solution in some cases.
The problem is that since there are so many of them, they
add to the confusion in the market. It is unlikely that any
of these will ever gain significant market share, although
they will probably persist for a while.
So what should someone who is looking to deploy wireless technology
today do? In times of risk and uncertainty, there is generally
a "flight to safety." For this uncertain period
of time in wireless development the safe bet is the good old
standard and interoperable 802.11b technology. The best solution
is one that will allow an organization to purchase an 802.11b
solution today and easily upgrade it to any future wireless
technology winners. The winning technologies may be based
around 802.11a, 802.11g or some other specification. The upgradeable
solution should be able to support them. By 'upgradeable'
I mean a solution where you can change a small component,
without ripping out all the old technology to replace it entirely
with new technology.
Wireless and India
Now let's turn our attention to what's happening in in the
wireless space locally and understand how the near future
looks. WLAN is talked about very sporadically even though
there was a lot of noise on Bluetooth. As one may be aware,
Bluetooth has been talked about more in the telecom sense.
Actually, WLAN provides a comprehensive solution which caters
to the requirements of both telecom and IT. In India, both
a buyer and a seller of WLAN need to have a WPC (Wireless
Planning & Coordination Wing) license. Enterprise customers
are finding this a barrier to implementation. One hopes that
as pressure builds up due to market demand, there will be
relaxation in the licensing provision. This will give an impetus
to the wireless market.
On a closing note, remember the days when we went from good
old 10Mbps Ethernet to something faster? For a while, there
was great confusion in the market--100VGAnylan, Full Duplex
Switched Ethernet, 25 Mbps ATM, Fast Token Ring, FDDI, OC-3
ATM, and Fast Ethernet--they were all proposed as replacements
for Ethernet. All of these technologies were standards. Eventually
the market settled on one, Fast Ethernet, but not before a
lot of incorrect technology decisions were made, and a lot
of gear had to be discarded. Let's try to learn from history
and let's not repeat the same mistakes.