[plug] Wireless-N router for faster wireless....

William Kenworthy billk at iinet.net.au
Tue Jan 20 13:38:26 WST 2009

Encryption has overhead which can drastically cut into the available
throughput.  Further, cheaper 802.11 devices (mainly older ones Ive
looked at) can get cpu bound (or results that look like that) that also
seem to cut throughput.  These issues (the available embedded cpu's at
the time) were why WEP was originally specified, even though they new it
was weak even as the standard was ratified.


On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 15:27 +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> William Kenworthy <billk at iinet.net.au> writes:
> > Yes, you have to separate the bandwidth - if you have two groups of
> > machines on different channels, you will need to bridge them - I think
> > upnp needs to be on the same subnet.  2nd cheap access point may be
> > the way to go?
> >
> > Also, if you can design it to be a totally isolated link, you might be
> > able to turn off WPA and gain quite a lot of bandwidth.
> What?  Can you back up that assertion?  WPA should have *no* effect on
> available bandwidth, in general.
> Some specific hardware may not perform well, but that is more an issue
> with the encryption algorithm than WPA itself — especially since TKIP
> uses the WEP algorithm, rekeyed automatically.
> Specifically, some hardware may fall back to software / firmware when
> using AES encryption with WPA2, but none of it should show any
> significant degradation when running TKIP.
> Regards,
>         Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG discussion list: plug at plug.org.au
> http://www.plug.org.au/mailman/listinfo/plug
> Committee e-mail: committee at plug.linux.org.au
William Kenworthy <billk at iinet.net.au>
Home in Perth!

More information about the plug mailing list