Wi-Fi Now Has Version Numbers, and Wi-Fi 6 Comes Out Next Year (theverge.com) 133
The Wi-Fi Alliance said Wednesday it was rebranding the "802.11" Wi-Fi standards that have long served as a source of potential confusion for users. From now on, said the Wi-Fi Alliance, the current 802.11ac standard will be known as Wi-Fi 5, while its successor 802.11ax will be known as Wi-Fi 6. From a report: In the past, Wi-Fi versions were identified by a letter or a pair of letters that referred to a wireless standard. The current version is 802.11ac, but before that, we had 802.11n, 802.11g, 802.11a, and 802.11b. It was not comprehensible, so the Wi-Fi Alliance -- the group that stewards the implementation of Wi-Fi -- is changing it. All of those convoluted codenames are being changed.
Now, instead of wondering whether "ac" is better than "n" or if the two versions even work together, you'll just look at the number. Wi-Fi 5 is higher than Wi-Fi 4, so obviously it's better. And since Wi-Fi networks have always worked together, it's somewhat clearer that Wi-Fi 5 devices should be able to connect with Wi-Fi 4 devices, too.
Now that the retroactive renaming is done, it's time for the future. If you've been closely following router developments over the past year (no judgments here), you'll know that the next generation of Wi-Fi is on the horizon, with the promise of faster speeds and better performance when handling a multitude of devices. It was supposed to be called 802.11ax, but now it'll go by a simpler name: Wi-Fi 6. The Wi-Fi Alliance says that it expects companies to adopt this numerical advertising in place of the classic lettered versions.
Now, instead of wondering whether "ac" is better than "n" or if the two versions even work together, you'll just look at the number. Wi-Fi 5 is higher than Wi-Fi 4, so obviously it's better. And since Wi-Fi networks have always worked together, it's somewhat clearer that Wi-Fi 5 devices should be able to connect with Wi-Fi 4 devices, too.
Now that the retroactive renaming is done, it's time for the future. If you've been closely following router developments over the past year (no judgments here), you'll know that the next generation of Wi-Fi is on the horizon, with the promise of faster speeds and better performance when handling a multitude of devices. It was supposed to be called 802.11ax, but now it'll go by a simpler name: Wi-Fi 6. The Wi-Fi Alliance says that it expects companies to adopt this numerical advertising in place of the classic lettered versions.
Too bad they didn't use years (Score:5, Funny)
For example, call it WiFi 2018.
Then we could have non-techies doing really stupid things like asking if Office 2019 needs WiFi 2019 to work properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we could have non-techies doing really stupid things like asking if Office 2019 needs WiFi 2019 to work properly.
Or techies asking if WiFi 2019 needs Kali 2019 to penetrate properly.
Why so rational? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think everyone learned from Microsoft's Windows 95 mistake. Now they are screwed after another 84 versions.
Re:Too bad they didn't use years (Score:4)
Here's a quick summary of the new naming:
- 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g (unchanged)
- 802.11n - Wi Fi 4 (renamed)
- 802.11ac - Wi Fi 5 (renamed)
- 802.11ax - Wi Fi 6 (not yet released)
Wanna bet (Score:2)
this will end up with manufacturers claiming every little thing they improve should increment the number, so they can sell new APs and routers.
Re: (Score:3)
If implemented properly by the WiFi Alliance, major numbers should not change, but expect a barrage of :
WiFi 6.3++ultra/hyper/mega/advanced type branding on the APs and Cards.
Just like with 3G, 3.G, 3.5G+, 4G, 4G Advanced, etc...
All kidding aside, I think this is a good development.
Leave the IEEE 802.11letter(letter) to people that understand it, and give joe consumer an easier thing to go by, especially since WiFi was (and still is) a marketing name anyway.
Actually, I can not understand what took the WiFi
Re: (Score:3)
In the age of dialup modems, manufacturers used names like "56Kflex" or "V32.FAST" even though they were not approved standards. (The official standard was still being written.) Perhaps the same will happen with WiFi...... "Upgrade now to WiFi.FAST with 1000 gigabit speeds!" (Not officially approved.)
Re: (Score:1)
Because they don't already do that now?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand why the WiFi Alliance used such confusing titles (802.11ac, 802.11n, 802.11g, 802.11a, and 802.11b).
Dialup standards progressed in a logical fashion from V.22 to V.32 to V.34 and so on. The bigger the number the faster the speed, so it made logical sense.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. I personally was waiting for 802.11omgwtfbbq to be released... seeing as those letters have no intrinsic meaning nor order.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wanna bet (Score:4, Informative)
Dialup standards progressed in a logical fashion from V.22 to V.32 to V.34 and so on. The bigger the number the faster the speed, so it made logical sense.
Hardly. V.22 was 1200 bps. Then you've got V.23, which is... also 1200 bps. For 2400 bps, we go backward from V.23 to V.22bis. Faster than that you had HST, CSP, and ... V.24? Nope. V.22ter? Nope. Jump to V.32 9600 bps and then V.32bis at 14400 bps.
And after that, any guesses as to what was after V.32bis? V.33? No. Maybe we jump by 10 again to V.42? Well, V.42 is a modem standard supported by modems of the time. But it's not a modulation standard but rather an orthogonal standard for data compression! So you've got combos like V.32 + V.42 and V.32bis + V.42, or V.32bis + V.42bit.
This time we go to V.34 after V.23bis. But not immediately, first there is V.Fast and V.32terbo. Then we get to V.34 at 28,800 bps, later extended to 33.8k and called V.34bis or V.34+ or just V.34.
Now we skip V.41, V.42, V.42bis, and V.44 because those are compression standards (don't forget MNP-5) and jump all the way to V.90 to get 56k.
802.11a,b,g,n,ac,ax it actually a lot less complicated than modem standards were.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't expect people to change what they call it. Its so that when you compane a 802.11g to an 802.11a to an 802.11ac you know which one is the more modern (and thus higher performance) interface. Because the current naming convention sucks.
By length then alphabetical order (Score:2)
With the exception of the obsolete "a" and "b", the rule is that a revision with 2 letters is newer than 1, then a later first letter (expected to change in Wi-Fi 7), then a later second letter. Thus "g" < "n" < "ac" < "ax". I don't see what's so illogical about it.
Re:By length then alphabetical order (Score:4, Interesting)
And why do you expect the average person to know that? The average person understands increasing numbers. Or increasing letters. But if you tell them version "ac" vs "n" then have no clue- and are probably more likely to guess alphabetical (so "n") is newer than number of letters. Truthfully that would have been my guess as well, as plenty of routers back in the day advertised themselves as 802.11ac for supporting a and c. I'd have thought it was really old.
This is a much more easily understood system.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that there's no reason to assume "ac", which comes alphabetically before n, is actually more advanced. There's no reason for them to know that it is a 2 digit counter.
If you're really arguing that that system is easier than monotonically increasing numbers, you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with numbers (Score:2)
Numbers coming out at this particular point in history are not selfless, especially so soon after the last standard started shipping.
Numbers are ALL about an upgrade threadmill. They're trying to set us up for the camera megapixel wars all over again. Or the Chrome vs. Firefox versioning wars. Eventually you end up losing the numbers and gaining them again (Windows is a terrible example of this)
In a world where we end up with fragmentation and planned obsolescense is a system where security theater has a pr
Re: (Score:1)
It's not illogical but 1,2,3,4,5,6 is much more clear as a progression than a,b,g,n,ac,ax.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh lord. Better watch out. We got ourselves quite the Internet badass here.
I think... (Score:1)
...they should just skip to Wi-Fi 10
Re: (Score:2)
...they should just skip to Wi-Fi 10
The problem with this is that Wi-Fi 2, 3, 4,5, 6...9 are all higher than 10. Just run a sort on them...
Not that the previous letters were any better.
Maybe they could name them after rare animals. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and add an almost appropriate alliterative adjective.
Second thoughts, belay last. That'd just be sooooo camp.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and add an almost appropriate alliterative adjective.
Second thoughts, belay last. That'd just be sooooo camp.
You think that's bad, wait until your $10 Wi-Fi router is running systemd.
Re: (Score:2)
You mock, and I agree: cutesy code names are annoying, but Canonical's random animals have at least been alphabetical, so you stood a chance of figuring out what a given release version was relative to what's current. Apple's cutesy code names are uselessly arbitrary.
"Requires OS X Tortoiseshell".
Well f--k. I'm running OS X Calico. Is that newer or older than Tortoiseshell?
"Requires macOS La Brea".
Well f--k. I'm running macOS Mount Diablo. Is that newer or older than La Brea?
Agree. Much easier to know that Ubuntu Masterbating Monkey is newer than Ubuntu Horny Hardon. Except they've already wrapped around again. How are you supposed to know Bionic Beaver is newer than Breezy Badger? How the fuck do you go through so many versions in 10 years? At least the version number 18.10 representing released 10th month of 2018 makes some sense.
Kind of like MS versions did. Server 2000, 2003, 2008. Then they fucked it up with the R2 versions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but what if you are sitting on that edge and need that little bit more? It really should go to 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
....they should just skip to Wi-Fi 10
No, Wi-Fi X, you know anything that can be associated with apple is way cool and the best in the universe
Slightly insulting (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because....7 ate 9...
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're Yoda, in which case it's
6, 7 ate.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at a full list of 802.11 standards and amendments [wikipedia.org].
Yes, your average consumer knows their alphabet, and can probably figure out that 802.11ac is better than 802.11n. But it isn't clear or concise, and the other IEEE 802.11 standards could get in the way. 'Oh, I heard about 802.11ad, WiGig - isn't that faster and newer?'
If these versions functionally act as the yearly rollup meta-standards as well (for example, IEEE 802.11-2016 rolls up ae, aa, ad, ac,
Why is versioning so hard? (Score:5, Informative)
After window 3.11 Microsoft tossed out the idea of coming up with reasonable versions.
With going to Dates, then just letter combinations and back to a number, then skipping numbers and just sticking on 10
Apple did the same thing. After iOS 9 they just got stuck on OS X (Ten)
Solaris dropped the major version number and just sold the minor number.
Mozilla just changed to match Google Chrome version for no reason.
Version numbers should mean something.
Major number means a major revision or change on key components.
Minor is just for patches and fixes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they should follow SANE numbering schemes.... like lots of open-source projects do.
Current versions:
gettext 0.19.8.1 (project started in 1990)
pkg-config 0.29.2 (project started in 2000)
enlightenment 0.22.4 (project started in 1997)
Re: (Score:3)
At least I know enlightenment 0.22.4 is newer then 0.21.9.
I know developers hate taking the plunge and say here is version 1.0 because they feel it isn't quite done yet.
However I feel if it is good enough to be in a stable release of a major distribution, it would be safe to take it out to beta.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta be careful with point releases though. Is 1.9 or 1.10 the later version? Developers would probably say 1.10 is newer, but users used to normal maths and simple sorting algorithms might conclude that 1.9 > 1.1 so 1.9 is newer.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft tossed out the idea of coming up with reasonable versions
I was about to write some snarky comment about MS having reasonable version numbers behind the marketing of their OS, reflecting the code updates to the kernel .... however...
Windows NT 3.1 = 3.1
Windows NT 3.5 = 3.5
Windows NT 4.0 = 4.0
Windows 2000 = 5.0
Windows XP = 5.1
Windows Vista = 6.0
Windows 7 = 6.1
Windows 8 = 6.2
Windows 8.1 = 6.3
and then ....
Windows 10 = 10.0
Fucking hell Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3)
> Windows Vista = 6.0
> Windows 7 = 6.1
> Windows 8 = 6.2
You mean that bastardized OS known as Windows 8 is just a "minor change" from the smooth-running Windows 7? Nonsense! It really should have been incremented a whole number.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that bastardized OS known as Windows 8 is just a "minor change" from the smooth-running Windows 7? Nonsense!
Not nonsense at all. The Windows 8 kernel didn't go through any major changes. They only horrendously screwed the UI.
Re: (Score:2)
Window's version numbering is that way to avoid breaking apps that look for specific versions.
A lot of apps look for V6, and if they changed to V7 they would break because the developers were idiots. Same with going to Windows 10 instead of Windows 9, too many apps were looking for the "Windows9" string to detect 95/98 and broke.
Re: (Score:3)
> A lot of apps look for V6, and if they changed to V7 they would break because the developers were idiots
I've heard that before, but now Microsoft has moved to version 10.0 (coded in the OS), so I would expect lots of apps to break, but so far it seems okay.
Re: (Score:2)
Only because they have a compatibly layer that has a big list of badly coded apps.
That's partly why they have telematics. They built up the list during the beta that was open to anyone, and continually add to it. It also knows about apps that don't handle DPI scaling and stuff like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Version numbers should mean something. Major number means a major revision or change on key components. Minor is just for patches and fixes.
For libraries, I completely agree that versioning is crucial. In library version numbers:
Re: (Score:3)
Per usual, blame bureaucrats. They decided "Windows 4.0" was not copyrightable, so that forced Microsoft to use "Windows 95" which is a NAME instead of a version. Ditto with OS X.
More recent changes like Chrome hopping 55 to 56 to 57 without minor revisions like 55.1, 55.2, 55.3 mostly lies on the Marketers who think customers are too dumb to understand decimals. (Like 55.3 is too hard to remember. Like just stick to whole numbers, okay?.... wait, let me take a selfie.)
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome does use point version numbers. The current version is 69.0.3497.100.
The format is MAJOR.MINOR.BUILD.PATCH. Major is the bi-monthly release cycle with feature changes, minor is for stuff like emergency patches or minor updates and doesn't get used. Build is the build number you can refer to for build parameters, and the patch level is some internal development thing.
It's actually not a bad system because for users only the major version really matters and is easy to track.
Re: (Score:2)
Marketing. :(
Although some companies still keep version numbers.
Frequencies? (Score:2)
Will wifi6 work on the same frequencies than wifi6? And what about wifi4 and wifi7?
You cannot compare apples and pigs!
WiFi Alliance != IEEE (Score:1)
The 802.11 names are IEEE technical standards. The WiFi alliance people are just marketing weenies more than anything. The IEEE 802.11 type standards will continue to exist as they always have.
This is just marketing goop.
Not compatible (Score:2, Informative)
Details matter, and the summary just isn't correct. Different wi-fi versions haven't always been compatible. The 802.11b and 802.11g standards used the 2.4 GHz band while the 802.11a standard used the 5 GHz band. There was hardware that supported both the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands, but a lot of the hardware didn't. An 802.11a adapter couldn't connect to 802.11b or 802.11g networks. And if your adapter supported just 802.11b or also 802.11g, you couldn't connect to an 802.11a network. More recent standards h
Re: (Score:2)
You may well be right about that (not my area of expertise) but if you aren't you will be.
Backward compatibility adds complexity. And adding complexity adds costs. Adding costs reduces bonuses.
Somethings's got to go, and it won't be the bonuses.
Re:Not compatible (Score:4)
Ah, for want of Mod points! This. So much this.
802.11a came first, so let's call it WiFi 1
802.11b came next, so let's refer to it as Wifi 2
a and b were NOT compatible -- used different frequencies and hardware. There was a time when you could get one or the other and there were pros and cons to both.
802.11g was next, so Wifi 3 -- was mostly compatible with b, but not a... and if you truly wanted g speeds without issues, you'd tell the wifi access point to NOT allow b to work on it because otherwise, whenever a b device connected, everything dropped to b speeds.
802.11n, 802.11ac, etc.. these are all just IEEE spec names and were never supposed to be consumer friendly. It's fine that they're making a clearer naming scheme for marketing purposes to ordinary consumers, but... it's just not true that all newer versions of Wifi are backward compatible with older ones... and there are even wifi specs for things that were designed around the same time period for different purposes that were never meant to be compatible.... like wireless connectivity between buildings that works on a diff spec and frequency than your general access points indoors.
Version numbers? How retro. (Score:2)
Didn't they get the memo that we're using vaguely related random alphabetical nonsense for versions now?
I want WiFi Twinkie, which is clearly better than WiFi Quiche.
WiFi naming (Score:4, Funny)
WiFi argh
WiFi Vista
WiFi Zero
WiFi Wii
iWiFi
JuiceFi
Re: (Score:2)
Higher obviously better (Score:4, Funny)
Wi-Fi 5 is higher than Wi-Fi 4, so obviously it's better.
Can't wait to tell my doctor that about my blood-pressure and cholesterol - thanks The Verge and /. editors!
Re: (Score:2)
My Wi-Fi goes to 11!
Important point: (Score:4, Informative)
WiFi 802.11a , b and g DO NOT get a version number. WiFi 1 , 2 and 3 DO NOT EXIST. TFS does not state this.
WiFi 802.11n will be retconed as WiFi 4.
WiFi 802.11ac will be retconed as WiFi 5 as TFS clearly states, and WiFi 802.11ax will be WiFi 6. (due early next year).
This will help with compatibility issues (WiFi a is not compatible with b or-g (pun intended) ). Yes compatibility between n and a is optional, not mandatory, but I guess this guys had to start somewhere, and pretty much all 802.11n routers on sale nowadays are dualband...
Again, this is a positive move, and long overdue.
So... frequencies? Features? (Score:5, Informative)
One big problem I see... as far as I can tell, the standard does nothing to clarify whether a given device supports ONLY 2.4GHz, or whether it supports 2.4GHz *and* 5GHz... and if it supports 5GHz, which channels it supports & how.
There are lots of 802.11ac devices, for example, that either don't fully support the use of U-NII(2C) channels, or have crippled DFS implementations that use a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel... satisfying the FCC's requirements, but doing it in a way that results in a product so crippled it almost might as well not even bother with U-NII(2C) channels(*).
I'm also curious to know how they intend to deal with things like AP-roaming and dynamic handoffs... something that was theoretically defined on paper way back in 2008, but (AFAIK) has NEVER really worked properly with consumer devices on home networks. Or pretty much ANYTHING besides a tightly-controlled Enterprise network.
This is my major beef with wireless network gear today... it's DAMN NEAR IMPOSSIBLE, even if you know EXACTLY what standards you need compliance with, to actually walk into a store like Best Buy and make an informed purchasing decision based on their advertising literature and packaging. And if you DO go online and read teardown reviews, there's still no guarantee... the manufacturer could have completely changed not only the general design, but literally changed out the entire chipset with a completely different one that has inferior performance or standards support while keeping the model number (often, even the UPC) unchanged. Linksys & Netgear are both notorious for this... often, they'll indicate the revision on a sticker on the device itself, but put NOTHING on the packaging that's visible before you break the shrinkwrap to indicate whether you're getting the one that earned 5-star reviews & had people drooling, or the later version that got 1 & 2-star reviews and is a pale, cruel imitation of its earlier self.
----
(*) Many of the 5GHz channels share spectrum with weather radar & have to make a "robust" attempt to detect its presence and refrain from using frequencies where it's detected. The variability comes from the fact that some devices take the cheap approach... shutting down and going dark entirely for at least a minute to listen for radar, and assuming the worst at the slightest hint of a signal. This makes the FCC happy, but results in a product that's dysfunctional (to put it nicely).
The cheap/usual way is for the AP to just "go dark" for a minute while listening on the channel for things like weather radar transmissions. When this happens, the wifi connection appears to just silently drop for no apparent reason, then reappears about a minute later (assuming it didn't detect what it thought was a radar signature).
The more sophisticated way is for an internet-connected device to include a GPS receiver & query the FCC's database directly after discerning its location... if it's not within range of a known radar site, it can skip the majority of physical DFS checks requiring radio silence (basically, doing it once at startup). Alternatively, the AP could include an additional radio receiver & logic so that prior to "going dark" on a DFS channel to listen, it could temporarily switch to an alternate, non-restricted 5GHz channel (and notify clients it's about to change channels). The alternate channel might suck, but IMHO, "works poorly for a minute " is STILL a huge improvement over "goes dark and doesn't work AT ALL for a minute every hour"
I might be wrong, but I think 802.11ad MIGHT (in theory) have the necessary hardware to simultaneously use two non-contiguous 5GHz channels (say, 36 and 104), in which case it could (conceivably) "go dark" on channel 104 for DFS while maintaining an active link with connected clients (at half-throughput) on channel 36... but whether any 802.11ad device you can actually go out and purchase TODAY as a non-Enterprise customer (or any random electronic device conceivably purchased at Best Buy or Walmart) can actually SUPPORT that is anybody's guess.
Re: (Score:2)
We did not get this info when WiFi was called 802.11letter(letter) , and we will not get this info now thast is called WiFi#.
This only makes it easier to discern that 802.11ac is better than 802.11n, not to discern if, say, netgear WiFi5 model "whatevur" V2 is better than Linksys WiFi5 model "whatevurelse" v2 or netgear WiF5 model "whatevur" V4
Of course consumer WiFi is crap, if you want pro features (like AP roaming) get pro or semipro gear. This is like complaining that when you connect a Harddrive to you
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of them, and with good reason as they dont have an american or canadian distributor. Or really any distribution in north america or south america at all by the looks of it...
https://en.avm.de/service/dist... [en.avm.de]
I'm not sure i want auto updating routers that everyone owns though. Seems ripe for mass outages. I know that the wireless frequencies will be different in different areas of the world, maybe they dont have any licensing here?
Here i think 60% of people use the wifi router provided by the ISP
Not confusing enough (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Or even worse, car emissions standards. There's been Low Emission Vehicle, (was there Super low?), Ultra Low Emission Vehicle, Partial-Zero Emission Vehicle, and probably others I don't remember. Then there's "tiers". I doubt anyone knows what it means except regulators and their victims.
As for USB I wish they'd just get rid of everything older than USB3, or at least restrict it to mice and keyboards and other stuff that needs only a tiny throughput.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's one louder (Score:1)
Marty DiBergi: "Why don't you just make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?"
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] "These go to eleven."