Is 802.11n Worth the Money?

Is 802.11n Worth the Money?

By CWNP On 09/12/2007 - 5 Comments

I'm thinking that most 802.11n deployments will initially be in the 5 GHz UNII band using 40 MHz channels.  Otherwise, why would anyone roll it out - right?  There are a few enhancements other than just throughput with 802.11n equipment, but you should consider if they will be enough to justify the costs.  Throughput enhancements will likely have to be a large part of a WLAN upgrade to 802.11n to get organizations to spend the money.  Starting with an assumption that using 40 MHz channels in 5 GHz bands will be the norm due to more available channels and less congestion in each channel, let's consider the ramifications of backwards compatibility with 802.11a devices. 


802.11a devices use 20 MHz channels.  In a 40 MHz environment, this is going to necessitate use of protection mechanisms in 20/40 MHz mode (very likely) or use of the PCO functionality of 802.11n (unlikely, at least for a while).  Protection mechanisms, as we all know from 802.11b/g mixed deployments, cause a severe degradation in throughput.  With the number of 802.11a capable phones that will be in the average enterprise WLAN when 802.11n is finally rolled out en masse, it's a given that 802.11n will not initially give us the kind of throughput that many newcomers to this industry might be hoping for.  

Only a greenfield 802.11n deployment is going to give us a significant throughput boost over 802.11a in the 5 GHz UNII bands, and that's not going to happen until wireless phone manufacturers deliver 802.11n capable handsets.  You won't see HT PHY capable handsets for quite a while - especially since we JUST NOW got 802.11a/g handsets.  Manufacturers' reasoning seems to be that the HT PHY doesn't give you any performance boost over the OFDM PHY since voice handsets use such small amounts of bandwidth to begin with.  My humble opinion is that their justification saves them money, but costs the customer BIG in lost throughput across the WLAN.  If the handsets were HT PHY capable (along with everything else on the WLAN), a greenfield deployment would give the end user the significant performance gains they are looking for and would easily justify an 802.11n upgrade of the infrastructure.  It's the same scenario we had with upgrading the infrastructure to 802.11g - only this time, 802.11b, 802.11g, and 802.11a all affect 802.11n deployments, depending on the frequencies deployed on 802.11n networks of course.

Other than throughput (since we already know that we're not going to get much of a boost from 802.11n in the average deployment due to various protection mechanisms), what other performance enhancements might make the upgrade to 802.11n worth the money?  Use of multiple radio chains and new PHY protocols gives us much better sensitivity and better range.  Transmit Beamforming (TxBF) gives us targeted, high-gain transmission (whenever vendors decide to give us this functionality).  MIMO gives us resistance to the degrading effects of multipath, eliminating many coverage hole issues.  Is it worth the money to upgrade if throughput isn't significantly enhanced?  Only you can be the judge of that.

What problems might we encounter when migrating to 802.11n?  Consider that RF planning tools - and even manual surveys for that matter - must now take into consideration added coverage due to multipath.  With very sensitive radio chains, receivers will have even more problems with co-channel inteference if the site survey isn't adjusted.  It's possible that with future feature sets like TxBF, we might have client stickiness problems once again.  Isn't 802.11n fun? 

5 Responses to Is 802.11n Worth the Money?

Subscribe by Email
09/19/2007 at 17:52pm
Who really thinks that PoE, or lack of support for it, will drive .11n? That's kind of like saying SCSI drove the adoption of larger hard drives, or better still, PoE drove IP phone adoption.

No doubt that PoE as we know it will have more and more limited use - but whomever hasn't seen that coming is likely also wasting a lot of money lining switch vendors pockets buying fully powered switches.

.11n will drive the solution for powering, not the other way around. There's already solutions in the market, just nothing standard today. But, that's how it usually works....i.e. the need presents itself, a few build solutions, and later vendors are forced to provide standards to satisfy customers demands for interoperability.

09/17/2007 at 19:49pm
Further to Bill Vansco comment on PoE, Cisco 1250 takes 18W with 2 radios. It think most PoE sw. max. out at 15W.
Given that .11n's main advantage is at 5G & a network will probably have to support 2.4G too, you're in a bind with PoE.

09/17/2007 at 11:06am
Client stickyness was more of a bad client driver issue and/or poor site survey than anything. It is true that you won't be able to just replace your existing APs with 802.11n capable without a new site survey or you will have problems, however many people are looking at a forklift upgrade from older non-managed APs to controller based architectures anyway. It could be time for a new site survey using 2007 capable systems - either 802.11a or 802.11n.

09/17/2007 at 10:31am

Additional factors for 802.11n adoption in the enterprises will be the switches and power requirements. 802.11n enterprise AP are going to push 36 to 57VDC and the swithc port for the higher data rates need to be GIG ports for every 802.11n AP. These also need to be factored into the cost of 802.11n for the enterprises. How many enterprises dod you know of have spare gig ports and 802.3at power in the switches? More performance but at what cost for the businesses. These additional hidden costs are going to delay the adoption of 802.11n in the enterprises for a while.

09/12/2007 at 20:07pm
Keep in mind that while the throughput will be degraded while using protection modes, the degree of degredation will not be as severe as 11b protected mode if the AP Vendor has implemented either of the packet aggregation methods in 11n. I think you'll still see decent performance, provided you have A-MPDU implemented for tx on the AP. Don't get me wrong, it will still be a lot lower than greenfield, but I think it will be surprisingly more effective than 11g has been.

<< prev - comments page 1 of 1 - next >>

Leave a Reply

Please login or sign-up to add your comment.
Success Stories

I literally just came out of the testing centre having taken the CWDP exam. The certification process opened my mind to different techniques and solutions. This knowledge can only broaden your perspective. Great job, CWNP, you have a great thing going on here.

Read More

Working through the CWNP coursework and certifications helped not only to deepen my technical knowledge and understanding, but also it boosted my confidence. The hard work it took to earn my CWNE has been rewarding in so many ways.

Read More

I want to commend you and all at CWNP for having a great organization. You really 'raise the bar' on knowing Wi-Fi well. I have learned a ton of information that is helping my job experience and personal career goals, because of my CWAP/CWDP/CWSP studies. Kudos to all at CWNP.

Read More