No base station required: peer-to-peer WiFi Direct is go

The Wi-Fi Alliance has started the process of certifying devices that use its new WiFi Direct protocol.

<a href='http://meincmagazine.com/gadgets/news/2010/10/no-base-station-required-peer-to-peer-wifi-direct-is-go.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[Decoherent]

Neat! Here's hoping this is included in Android 2.3!

 

[NicciAdonai]

What would be nice is if each connected PC were a range extender for a traditional router. Could this tech provide that?

 

[WizemansMace]

Good Question NicciAdonai, it is precisely that function that I am hoping this new certification will allow, as that would make the theoretical limits on physical spread of a wireless network much larger.

 

[theluketaylor]

What would be nice is if each connected PC were a range extender for a traditional router. Could this tech provide that?

You're thinking of mesh networking, something IEEE has already addressed in 802.11s

The most well known device to support it is the OLPC

 

[spiff17]

I don't get it; what's the difference between this and an ad-hoc setup?

 

[blither]

I remember see a research group do this in Austria while I was there with mobile phones in 2007. I wonder if there was any correlation to there work. Or if it was something they had been working on for awhile.

 

[cvarner]

This worries me... Arsians argue ad nauseum about people who don't secure their wireless routers, and whether this constitutes an "invitation" for someone else to connect. I have to think there are a lot more idiots with smartphones than there are with routers. One can only hope that unlike routers, WiFi Direct devices will ship with encryption etc already turned on by default, and ideally the only way to turn it off would be a speech-recognition circuit requiring the user to shout "I'm an idiot monkey-boy, please give me a spanking" every five minutes.

 

[cosmotic]

What ever happened to WirelessUSB and Bluetooth?

 

[Paul Eccles]

@spiff17, I'm no expert but AFAIK, ad-hoc still creates a single, weaker hotspot from one of your devices, which your other devices connect to. It's still the old router and client model whereas with Peer to Peer they all act as hotspots together, creating a peer to peer network which can be very easily extended and grown.

 

[spiff17]

@spiff17, I'm no expert but AFAIK, ad-hoc still creates a single, weaker hotspot from one of your devices, which your other devices connect to. It's still the old router and client model whereas with Peer to Peer they all act as hotspots together, creating a peer to peer network which can be very easily extended and grown.

Ah, I see. That is a little different. Thanks!

Also, +1 to cvarner's "idiot monkey-boy" circuit. I'd probably benefit from it.

 

[deee]

With lots of capable smartphones around, and one device bridging to the next ones, would it be possible to bypass the internet and make a non regulated alternative?

 

[Kevin Farabee]

With lots of capable smartphones around, and one device bridging to the next ones, would it be possible to bypass the internet and make a non regulated alternative?

We're already seeing this on several campuses with mesh networks. It's an interesting solution to the IPv4 crisis but I doubt we'd see it gain widespread acceptance anytime soon.

 

[Wes Felter]

The technical details of this thing are not public, but it looks like one of the devices in the group goes into access point mode and all the others go into client mode; this allows WPA to be used (WPA does not work in ad-hoc mode).

 

[Geoff Strickler]

We're already seeing this on several campuses with mesh networks. It's an interesting solution to the IPv4 crisis but I doubt we'd see it gain widespread acceptance anytime soon.

Mesh networks don't affect IPv4 usage at all, they're completely unrelated. Mesh networks allow wider range coverage for a Wi-Fi network. NAT has extended the useful life of IPv4, and while it can be used in a mesh network, it's not related to mesh or Wi-Fi, or Ethernet, or any other network PHY.

 

[hobgoblin]

So this finally brings obex to wifi? And if so, how much of that is software implementable? i don't want to go out and get a whole new wifi card for a laptop or such to transfer files.

The devil is truly in the details with this...

 

[NicciAdonai]

What would be nice is if each connected PC were a range extender for a traditional router. Could this tech provide that?

You're thinking of mesh networking, something IEEE has already addressed in 802.11s

The most well known device to support it is the OLPC

How easy is it to implement? Can I do it in under a half-hour with a Linksys and some tweaks to each client PC's Windows networking settings? If not, would this tech provide this ease-of-use, enabling, for example, a time-contrained ISP tech to service a large house or office building without extra equipment (range extenders)?

EDIT: I guess Internet Connection Sharing can do this. I just never thought about it. Huh.

 

[Galeran]

What ever happened to WirelessUSB and Bluetooth?

Bluetooth is alive and well on phones at least. Occasionally on a HID device such as a keyboard or presentation pointer/clicker/mouse.

Wireless USB (at least the certified version) seems to have died a painful marketplace death even though they did just bump the spec to v1.1 a couple months back, I'm among the very few mourners... looking at that "Unknown device" in my notebook's Windows 7 Device Manager and Lenovo's explanation

The wireless USB vendor ceased operations prior to Windows 7's release and we do not expect that any driver will be forthcoming. Wireless USB support has been dropped as a result.

I had sort of hoped that Apple would adopt wireless USB to restore some of the functionality of a dock. (Former Duo 210 owner!)

 

[zonk3r]

I don't get it; what's the difference between this and an ad-hoc setup?

It is easier to setup and WPA2 is required (can NOT be disabled).

Here's a pretty good rundown of "What you need to know about Wi-Fi Direct" from PC Mag.

 

[hobgoblin]

I don't get it; what's the difference between this and an ad-hoc setup?

It is easier to setup and WPA2 is required (can NOT be disabled).

Here's a pretty good rundown of "What you need to know about Wi-Fi Direct" from PC Mag.

I wish they would expand on the bluetooth comparison, as their speed and range arguments basically results in dead battery sooner.

 

[papaya.valentine]

hrm, does this totally replace intel's widi function?

 

[Chuckstar]

With lots of capable smartphones around, and one device bridging to the next ones, would it be possible to bypass the internet and make a non regulated alternative?

There's been lots of discussion about this. There's a number of problems with completely bypassing phone companies and/or the internet.

Bypassing the "internet" on a broad basis is tricky because you'd still need an addressing mechanism to find the peer you're looking for. If you use good old TCP/IP... then you're using the internet. You can get away with other addressing mechanisms on a small network, but at some scale you may as well go back to IP.

Bypassing cell carriers may be possible, but you quickly start to have problems with routing, lag, back-haul and the list goes on. Routing: if you have a huge ad hoc network made up of only clients, then how do packets find their way to distant peers? Lag: a large ad hoc network could have lots of hops between clients, introducing potentially significant lag. Back-haul: If you are trying to get data from LA from NYC, you really need it to end up on a fiber line in between... peer to peer over that distance isn't gonna cut it.

But this type of ad hoc networking might be great as a short-hop range extender. One or two hops before reaching a cellular tower or wifi gateway could allow for dramatically improved reception, with little added lag. One downside, though, is that your neighbor down the street with better reception is not gonna like the battery drain on his cell phone as it acts as a range extender for your data traffic.

 

[MatthiasF]

As if the wireless era being created didn't have enough issues with MITM attacks.

 

[darkowl]

So if the wi in wifi stands for wireless... what's the fi?

 

[uninventiveheart]

So if the wi in wifi stands for wireless... what's the fi?

The term Wi-Fi suggests Wireless Fidelity, resembling the long-established audio-equipment classification term high fidelity (in use since the 1930s) or Hi-Fi (used since 1950). Even the Wi-Fi Alliance itself has often used the phrase Wireless Fidelity in its press releases and documents; the term also appears in a white paper on Wi-Fi from ITAA. However, based on Phil Belanger's statement, the term Wi-Fi was never supposed to mean anything at all.

The term Wi-Fi, first used commercially in August 1999, was coined by a brand-consulting firm called Interbrand Corporation that the Alliance had hired to determine a name that was "a little catchier than 'IEEE 802.11b Direct Sequence'". Belanger also stated that Interbrand invented Wi-Fi as a play on words with Hi-Fi, and also created the yin-yang-style Wi-Fi logo.

The Wi-Fi Alliance initially used an advertising slogan for Wi-Fi, "The Standard for Wireless Fidelity", but later removed the phrase from their marketing. Despite this, some documents from the Alliance dated 2003 and 2004 still contain the term Wireless Fidelity. There was no official statement related to the dropping of the term.

The yin-yang logo indicates the certification of a product for interoperability.

Basically, it's a trade name so if later standards move away from 802.11 type technologies, the name can be applied to something else without confusing the public as to the purpose of the technology.

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

What would be nice is if each connected PC were a range extender for a traditional router. Could this tech provide that?

You're thinking of mesh networking, something IEEE has already addressed in 802.11s

The most well known device to support it is the OLPC

So, what's the difference between mesh networking and WiFi Direct? Is it so that in a mesh network, there is still a router somewhere, whereas in Direct, there is none?

 

[Deleted member 192806]

What ever happened to WirelessUSB and Bluetooth?

Bluetooth is alive and well on phones at least. Occasionally on a HID device such as a keyboard or presentation pointer/clicker/mouse.

Medical devices like blood glucose meters too. Don't forget the Blue-tooth specs is evolving as well.

 

[tungsten2k]

WHERE'S THE BEEF ?!

This blurp (aka, not much more than a press release with the company-pumping end paragraph chopped off) leaves more questions than it offers to answer. The FAQ offers w a y more meat: http:// w i - f i .org/files/20091019_Wi-Fi_Direct_FAQ.pdf

Would the extra 30 minutes doing a bit more research at how this might affect we Ars readers who desire more info than a press release really kill you Chris ? Postulate some theories and potential use cases just for fun ? You certainly couldn't have been up against pressure to get the breaking story out first, because I'm afraid to say Engaget beat you to the punch by a fair margin, and with a 1/4-Pounder patty worth of info.

C'mon Ars, bring back the 2-All-Beef-Patties™ tech reporting we're used to

 

[sagarm]

Yeah, I've got a few questions about this too. Can this be used with only a software upgrade? Could my DD-WRT router, in addition to a standard 802.11g network, be a node in a WiFi direct network?

Could, in theory, my laptop, smartphone, media box, desktop, and xbox act as signal extenders for said router? At the moment, of the xbox/desktop/media box, only one can get good signal at any time.

 

[Hast]

Would the extra 30 minutes doing a bit more research at how this might affect we Ars readers who desire more info than a press release really kill you Chris ? Postulate some theories and potential use cases just for fun ?

I've been trying to understand exactly WHAT it is WiFi Direct is supposed to do. And I still don't (even after reading their www page, and several Ars articles). The link you provided had the most information yet, but even that didn't answer the basic how and why questions.

Basically it says that *somehow* it will connect two devices together over WiFi. It seems like it's a special case of ad-hoc where both devices are in ad-hoc mode at the same time (That would be necessary in order for them to connect in any order. Ie for A to connect to B and vice versa.)

It then does a "yadda yadda yadda" and everything is good. (Ie, it completely ignores the hard parts.) From the PDF you linked it seems like they want to use WiFi Direct only as the carrier of information. Devices are then supposed to use eg UPnP or other protocols to do some actual work.

Contrast this with how Bluetooth is designed. There are layers of Profiles which specify functionality. This can be low level; like emulate a serial port, or device discovery. Or it can be high level; like stereo music streaming or network sharing. For two devices to work together they have to support the same combination of high level profiles to do something meaningful.

So far I have not seen anything in WiFi Direct which solves any of the following (critical) problems with device connectivity:

1) How do you discover a new device the first time. Ie, how do I connect my phone to my printer, or TV the first time?
2) How do you discover which functions the different devices provide? Ie, how do I know that I can print on my printer, or play music on my stereo?
3) How do you regulate protocols for how these functions are carried out? Ie, how do I actually print on a printer; or play music on a stereo? What protocols are used to transfer data? What protocols are used to control these functions, such as skip to the next song and similar?

Finally, as someone already pointed out. Bluetooth 3.0 has support for negotiating transfers over WiFi. So if you send something over BT, and both devices have WiFi as well, they can switch to WiFi for the transfer and then go back to BT for simple communication.

I'd really like to see someone like Ars do an in depth article abotu this tech. So far I've only seen market speak and vapor. If you'd like I could try helping out with it (either to help someone else understand the material or to help in writing it).

 

[Dulwithe]

2) How do you discover which functions the different devices provide? Ie, how do I know that I can print on my printer, or play music on my stereo?

If you need someone or some device to tell you what to do with your printer and/or stereo...?? Well then, I don't think you should be messing around with wifi direct.... ;-)

Just poking fun with your phraseology. But I get your point.

I would guess if a printer is set up for direct printing via wifi, and you can hook up directly via your own 'wifi direct' device, you would still be having to install a print driver and specify as you are installing the driver to find your device on direct wifi. (Pretty much ALL printer installations I have done have required confirmation/specification of the connection - USB, serial cable, wifi, LAN, etc.)

 

[lidocaineus]

Until there are more details, this is going in the "it sucks" column. If I want ad-hoc connections, bluetooth is the way to go. It's widespread, it's well understood, and the battery life is much nicer than wifi's constant pulsating blasts with no backoff.

If I need to print to a wifi printer, usually it's already on a network so I just join the network. If I need to send a file to someone on the street, I can use bluetooth. If I want to hook two wifi devices together, I toss one in ad-hoc mode and have the other one join (though this is rare). Where exactly does this fit in? It sounds like the last example, dumbed down to make it easier, for a situation that rarely comes about.

 

[.劉煒]

Older devices? Backwards compatibility? What *IS* it, in engineer terms?