At work 'they' insist upon calling the WiFi card in our laptops:
Intergrated Wireless Ethernet, or Wirless Ethernet Card.
My question: Does WiFi 801.b/g use the ethernet protocol?
Thanks
chull13@yahoo.com wrote:
> At work 'they' insist upon calling the WiFi card in our laptops:
> Intergrated Wireless Ethernet, or Wirless Ethernet Card.
> My question: Does WiFi 801.b/g use the ethernet protocol?
> Thanks
>
Yes. 802.11B/G uses ethernet protocol.
--
Cheers, Bob
>At work 'they' insist upon calling the WiFi card in our laptops:
>Intergrated Wireless Ethernet, or Wirless Ethernet Card.
>My question: Does WiFi 801.b/g use the ethernet protocol?
802.11 wireless encapsulates 802.3 ethernet packets. If you have an
ethernet wireless bridge, the data going in and out looks exactly like
ethernet. If you have a wireless USB or PCI client, the interface to
the operating system (NDIS) looks exactly like an ethernet interface.
<chull13@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> At work 'they' insist upon calling the WiFi card in our laptops:
> Intergrated Wireless Ethernet, or Wirless Ethernet Card.
> My question: Does WiFi 801.b/g use the ethernet protocol?
> "chull13@yahoo.com" <chull13@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>
>>At work 'they' insist upon calling the WiFi card in our laptops:
>>Intergrated Wireless Ethernet, or Wirless Ethernet Card.
>>My question: Does WiFi 801.b/g use the ethernet protocol?
>
> 802.11 wireless encapsulates 802.3 ethernet packets. If you have an
> ethernet wireless bridge, the data going in and out looks exactly like
> ethernet. If you have a wireless USB or PCI client, the interface to
> the operating system (NDIS) looks exactly like an ethernet interface.
In some ways they are quite different. Otherwise there would be no need for
to 802.11 to have its own standard in the 802 family.
To mention one important difference; 802.3 is the standard for CSMA/CD,
while 802.11 is for CSMA/CA. This leads to quite a few differences in the
features of the two network.
Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> hath wroth:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote in alt.internet.wireless:
>
>> "chull13@yahoo.com" <chull13@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>>
>>>At work 'they' insist upon calling the WiFi card in our laptops:
>>>Intergrated Wireless Ethernet, or Wirless Ethernet Card.
>>>My question: Does WiFi 801.b/g use the ethernet protocol?
>>
>> 802.11 wireless encapsulates 802.3 ethernet packets. If you have an
>> ethernet wireless bridge, the data going in and out looks exactly like
>> ethernet. If you have a wireless USB or PCI client, the interface to
>> the operating system (NDIS) looks exactly like an ethernet interface.
>
>In some ways they are quite different. Otherwise there would be no need for
>to 802.11 to have its own standard in the 802 family.
Of course they're different. I never suggested they were equivalent,
interchangeable, or replacements for each other. I said "802.11
wireless encapsulates 802.3 ethernet packets" which means that if you
extract the data inside the 802.11 packets, you get 802.3.
>To mention one important difference; 802.3 is the standard for CSMA/CD,
>while 802.11 is for CSMA/CA. This leads to quite a few differences in the
>features of the two network.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> hath wroth:
>
> >Jeff Liebermann wrote in alt.internet.wireless:
> >
> >> "chull13@yahoo.com" <chull13@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
> >>
> >>>At work 'they' insist upon calling the WiFi card in our laptops:
> >>>Intergrated Wireless Ethernet, or Wirless Ethernet Card.
> >>>My question: Does WiFi 801.b/g use the ethernet protocol?
> >>
> >> 802.11 wireless encapsulates 802.3 ethernet packets. If you have an
> >> ethernet wireless bridge, the data going in and out looks exactly like
> >> ethernet. If you have a wireless USB or PCI client, the interface to
> >> the operating system (NDIS) looks exactly like an ethernet interface.
> >
> >In some ways they are quite different. Otherwise there would be no need for
> >to 802.11 to have its own standard in the 802 family.
>
> Of course they're different. I never suggested they were equivalent,
> interchangeable, or replacements for each other. I said "802.11
> wireless encapsulates 802.3 ethernet packets" which means that if you
> extract the data inside the 802.11 packets, you get 802.3.
Really? How does that work? The connector on the wireless router
says ethernet. The NDIS5 interface on the USB, miniPCI and PCI
interfaces say ethernet on them. So, how would I connect an Arcnet,
DECNet, BiSync, or Token Ring network through a Wi-Fi device?
I think what you meant is that it doesn't need to be TCP/IP. Wireless
bridging is hard wired to ethernet, but not the protocol that rides on
ethernet. I've run NEBEUI and IPX/SPX (Novell) over wireless
successfully. However, be advised that there are problems. The
traffic patterns are quite different. If the access point has some
optimization for TCP/IP traffic, it may not be correct for other
protocols.
> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) hath wroth:
>
>>They don't have to be ethernet packets, either.
>
> Really? How does that work? The connector on the wireless router
> says ethernet.
The connector is usually RJ45.
<snip>
> I think what you meant is that it doesn't need to be TCP/IP.
On 21 Sep 2006 18:19:13 GMT, Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Message-ID: <u7cug2tl7q20brfua6ct3j92hfnt1vpbhp@4ax.com>
>
>: 802.11 wireless encapsulates 802.3 ethernet packets.
>
>The distribution system, aka the backbone network, in 802.11 wireless
>does not have to be Ethernet. HTH.
OK. According to IEEE 802.11-1999, it can also be 802.4 (token bus),
802.5 (token ring), 802.6 (FDDI based metro fiber), 802.9 (defunct),
and 802.12 (100baseVG). Except for token ring, all of these are
moribund, defunct, obsolete, and unobtainable. I believe that Madge,
Cisco, and Entrasys make token bus wireless (WTRP) devices, but those
are not 802.11 based. Got any non-ethernet products handy that are
also 802.11 based?
Hint: Restating your assertion without any substantiation is not very
good way of proving your point.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2006 18:19:13 GMT, Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Message-ID: <u7cug2tl7q20brfua6ct3j92hfnt1vpbhp@4ax.com>
> >
> >: 802.11 wireless encapsulates 802.3 ethernet packets.
> >
> >The distribution system, aka the backbone network, in 802.11 wireless
> >does not have to be Ethernet. HTH.
>
> OK. According to IEEE 802.11-1999, it can also be 802.4 (token bus),
> 802.5 (token ring), 802.6 (FDDI based metro fiber), 802.9 (defunct),
> and 802.12 (100baseVG).
You are here referring to the diagram on page iii:
: This standard is part of a family of standards for local and
: metropolitan area networks. The relationship between the standard and
: other members of the family is shown below.
As stated, the diagram is: the relationship between this standard (IEEE
802.11) and other members of the (IEEE 802) family.
> Except for token ring, all of these are moribund, defunct, obsolete, and
> unobtainable. I believe that Madge, Cisco, and Entrasys make token bus
> wireless (WTRP) devices, but those are not 802.11 based. Got any
> non-ethernet products handy that are also 802.11 based?
>
> Hint: Restating your assertion without any substantiation is not very
> good way of proving your point.
>> OK. According to IEEE 802.11-1999, it can also be 802.4 (token bus),
>> 802.5 (token ring), 802.6 (FDDI based metro fiber), 802.9 (defunct),
>> and 802.12 (100baseVG).
>
>You are here referring to the diagram on page iii:
Correct. That is the only mention of non-ethernet physical layer
protocols in 802.11-1999, 802.11b-1999, 802.11b-Corrections-2001, and
802.11g-2003. Nice idea that never happened.
Please note that the Wi-Fi Alliance was derived from WECA, the
"Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance".
>: This standard is part of a family of standards for local and
>: metropolitan area networks. The relationship between the standard and
>: other members of the family is shown below.
>
>As stated, the diagram is: the relationship between this standard (IEEE
>802.11) and other members of the (IEEE 802) family.
>
>> Except for token ring, all of these are moribund, defunct, obsolete, and
>> unobtainable. I believe that Madge, Cisco, and Entrasys make token bus
>> wireless (WTRP) devices, but those are not 802.11 based. Got any
>> non-ethernet products handy that are also 802.11 based?
Do you know of any non-ethernet 802.11 based devices? I don't. It's
kinda like MPLS (Multi-protocol Label Switching) which only supports
one protocol. Nice idea that never happened.
>> Hint: Restating your assertion without any substantiation is not very
>> good way of proving your point.
>
>You still think 802.11 is wireless ethernet?
Yes. Show me a working non-802.11 ethernet product and I'll change my
opinion. As far as the common home/office user is concerned, it's all
wireless ethernet.
~ >You still think 802.11 is wireless ethernet?
~
~ Yes. Show me a working non-802.11 ethernet product and I'll change my
(I read that as: "non-ethernet 802.11 product" ...)
~ opinion. As far as the common home/office user is concerned, it's all
~ wireless ethernet.
My mom's Airport Extreme ran for quite a while with nothing connected to
its LAN jacks, but an RJ11 cable plugged into its POTS jack. Yet, her
802.11g equipped laptop managed to browse the Internet just fine
(albeit slowly.) How could that be possible?
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:04:34 -0700, Aaron Leonard <Aaron@Cisco.COM>
wrote:
>~ >You still think 802.11 is wireless ethernet?
>~
>~ Yes. Show me a working non-802.11 ethernet product and I'll change my
>
>(I read that as: "non-ethernet 802.11 product" ...)
Oops. I wrote it backwards. Thanks.
>~ opinion. As far as the common home/office user is concerned, it's all
>~ wireless ethernet.
>
>My mom's Airport Extreme ran for quite a while with nothing connected to
>its LAN jacks, but an RJ11 cable plugged into its POTS jack. Yet, her
>802.11g equipped laptop managed to browse the Internet just fine
>(albeit slowly.) How could that be possible?
>
>Aaron
Inside the Airport is a dialup modem with a PPP processor, a router
with NAT/PAT, a wireless access point, and an ethernet port. The
laptop connects to the access point, which goes to the router, which
initiates a PPP connection to her ISP via the dialup modem. No need
for a physical ethernet connection. However, the laptop wireless was
doing 802.11 encapsulation of ethernet and the access point was doing
the same. There's ethernet in there even if there's no wired ethernet
cable involved.
WiFi/Ethernet 
Linear Mode
