What Is A Router?

A router is a device that forward data packets along networks. A router connects at least two networks, and a common example of that would be connecting the computers in your home or business with your Internet Service Provider's (ISP)network.

Routers are located at gateways, the places where two or more networks connect, and they're the critical devices that keep data flowing between networks and that keep the networks connected to the Internet. When data travels between locations on a network or from one network to a second network, the router sees and directs the data to the correct location. Routers typically use special protocols to communicate with each other and determine the best route between any two networks.

The Internet itself is a global network connecting millions of computers and smaller networks - so you can see how crucial the role of a router is to our way of communicating and computing.

Why Would I Need a Router? 
Many people set-up a network (generally referred to as a LAN, or Local Area Network. A wireless network is called a WLAN, or wireless LAN) in their homes to connect all their computers to the Internet without having to pay for a full subscription fee to their ISP for each computer on the network.

In many instances, an ISP will let you use a router and connect multiple computers to a single Internet connection and pay a nominal fee for each additional computer sharing the connection.

Routers for Home and Small Business 
Not all routers are created equal since their job will differ slightly from network to network. Additionally, you may look at a piece of hardware and not even realize it is a router. What defines a router is not its shape, color, size or manufacturer, but its job function of routing data packets between computers. A cable or DSL modem, which routes data between your PC and your ISP can be considered a router. In its most basic form, a router could simply be one of two computers running the Windows 98 (or higher) operating system connected together using a feature called Internet Connection Sharing (ICS). In this scenario, the computer that's connected to the Internet acts as the router for the second computer to obtain its Internet connection.

Going a step up from ICS, we have a category of hardware routers that are used to perform the same basic task as ICS, albeit with more features and functions. Often called broadband or Internet connection sharing routers, these routers allow you to share one Internet connection between multiple computers

Broadband or ICS routers will look a bit different depending on the manufacturer or brand, but wired routers are generally a small box-shaped hardware device with ports on the front or back into which you plug each computer, along with a port to plug in your broadband modem. These connection ports let the router send the data packets between each of the computers, and it also directs the data going to and from the Internet.

Depending on the type of modem and Internet connection you have, you could also choose a router with phone or fax machine ports. A wired network broadband router will typically have a built-in switch to allow for expansion. These routers also support an Internet standard called network address translation, or NAT, which allows all of your computers to share a single address on the Internet.

Wireless broadband routers look much the same as wired routers, with the obvious exception of the antenna on top, and the lack of cable running from the PCs to the router when it is all set up. Creating a wireless network adds a few more security concerns as opposed to wired networks, but wireless broadband routers do have extra levels of embedded security.

Along with the features found in wired routers, wireless routers provide extra security options thaat protect your network from prying eyes and unauthorized visitors. These include Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) and wireless MAC address filtering. WPA is a very strong encryption code that prevents outsiders from hacking into your network. Each computer on your network has unique identifier called a MAC address, and it's advisable to have your router filter it, so that it can't be identified outside of your network.

Additionally, most wireless routers can be configured for "invisible mode" so that your neighbor can't piggyback on to your Internet access or a hacker can't simply drive by your home or business and access your network. Wireless routers will often include ports for Ethernet connections as well. If you're unfamiliar with Wi-Fi and how it works, it is important to note that choosing a wireless router may mean you need to beef up your Wi-Fi knowledge-base. After a wireless network is established, you may possibly need to spend more time on monitoring and security than one would with a wired LAN.

Wired and wireless routers and the resulting network can claim pros and cons over each other, but they are somewhat equal overall in terms of function and performance. Both wired and wireless routers have high reliability and reasonably good security (without adding additional products). However -and this bears repeating - invest time in learning more about wireless security. Generally, a wired network will be cheaper overall, but setting up the router and running cables to the computers is a bit more difficult than setting up the wireless network. Of course, mobility on a wired system is very limited while wireless lets you access the Internet and your network from practically anywhere in your home or business.

GPRS Class Type

The class of the device determines the speed at which GPRS can be used.

For example, the majority of GPRS terminals will be able to download data at speeds of up to 24Kbps (kilobytes per second). At the higher end, speeds are theoretically possible up to 171.2 kbit/sec when 8 slots are assigned at the same time to a single user. In reality 40-50Kbps.

PC cards capable of GPRS will send data up to speeds of 48Kbps.

Compare this to current data speeds available:

Type
Uplink (Sending)
Downlink (Receiving)
GPRS
14 kbps
28-64 kbps
GSM CSD
9.6-14 kbps
9.6-14 kbps
HSCSD
28 kbps
28 kbps
Dial-UP
56 kbps
56 kbps
ISDN Standard
64 kbps
64 kbps
ADSL
256 kbps
512 kbps
Broadband
2 Mbps
2 Mbps

GPRS Multislot Classes

Multislot classes are product dependant, and determine the maximum achievable data rates in both the uplink and downlink directions.

Written as (for example) 3+1 or 2+2, the first number indicates the amount of downlink timeslots (what the mobile phone is able to receive from the network).
The second number indicates the amount of uplink timeslots (how many timeslots the mobile phone is able to transmit).

The active slots determine the total number of slots the GPRS device can use simultaneously for both uplink and downlink communications.

Multislot Class Downlink Slots Uplink Slots Active Slots
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
2
2
3
4
3
1
4
5
2
2
4
6
3
2
4
7
3
3
4
8
4
1
5
9
3
2
5
10
4
2
5
11
4
3
5
12
4
4
5

Futher Examples:

Class 2 Class 4
One Up, Two Down - (2+1) One Up, Three Down - (3+1)
8-12Kbps Send - 16-24Kbps Receive 8-12Kbps Send - 24-36Kbps Receive
Mororola Accompli A008
Trium Mondo, Sirius
Motorola TimeportT260
Class 6 - Configurable between Class 8
Two Up, Three Down One Up, Four Down
16-24Kbps Send - 24-36Kbps Receive 8-12Kbps Send - 32-40Kbps Receive
Or Three Up, Two Down Ericsson T39, R520
Motorola v60i, v66i
Samsung Q200, S100
Siemens S45, ME45, M50
Trium Eclipse
24-36Kbps Send - 16-24Kbps Receive
Nokia 6310, 6510, 8310
Class 10- Configurable between Class 12- Configurable between
One Up, Four Down One Up, Four Down
8-12Kbps Send - 32-48Kbps Receive 8-12Kbps Send - 32-48Kbps Receive
Or Two Up, Three Down Or Two Up, Three Down
16-24Kbps Send - 24-36Kbps Receive 16-24Kbps Send - 24-36Kbps Receive
Philips Fisio 820 Or Three Up, Two Down
24-36Kbps Send - 16-24Kbps Receive
Or Four Up, One Down
32-48Kbps Send - 8-12Kbps Receive
Sierra Wireless Aircard 750
GSM/GPRS PC Card

Class A, Class B & Class C?

The class indicates the mobile phone capabilities.

Class A
Class A mobile phones can be connected to both GPRS and GSM services simultaneously.


Class B

Class B mobile phones can be attached to both GPRS and GSM services, using one service at a time. Class B enables making or receiving a voice call, or sending/receiving an SMS during a GPRS connection. During voice calls or SMS, GPRS services are suspended and then resumed automatically after the call or SMS session has ended.


Class C
Class C mobile phones are attached to either GPRS or GSM voice service. You need to switch manually between services.

Learning to Share Your Wi-Fi

If you often find yourself on the road with a wireless-equipped laptop or smartphone, you probably spend a fair amount of your time parked at Wi-Fi hotspots. While there are lots of hotspots out there, they don't exactly provide blanket coverage, so finding one wherever you happen to be isn't always easy.

However, in any given location, chances are that personal Wi-Fi networks outnumber hotspots. So wouldn't it be nice if some of those private networks were made available for use by people who need Internet access?

Now they can. This year has seen the debut of several products designed to let people share access to their Wi-Fi networks with others, effectively turning them into hotspots. FON, WeFi, and Whisher are three firms that have recently entered the Wi-Fi sharing market (or are arguably in the process of creating it).

What's in It for You?

So why would you consider making your Wi-Fi network a hotspot? One reason might simply be the warm and fuzzy feeling you'll get from sharing resources with your fellow man or woman (after all, it seems to help sustain the open-source software movement).

But pure altruism really isn't everybody's thing, and if it isn't yours you might also consider a more tangible benefit. Specifically, sharing access to your own wireless network in turn gets you access to other people's networks. (Think of it as a sort of Wi-Fi quid pro quo.) If you're someone who travels periodically but not heavily enough to warrant paying for a subscription to a hotspot network, this can be a good way to get yourself some free Internet access on the road.

After all, hotspot networks typically charge anywhere from $20 - $40 for monthly access (sometimes requiring annual contracts) or $8 to $10 for daily access. While not necessarily unreasonable, those fees add up over time and can be somewhat difficult to justify for those that need only irregular or infrequent access.

Before You Start

Sharing your Wi-Fi network using one of the aforementioned products involve certain costs and ramifications, though, so it's not something that should be undertaken until you know what you're getting into.

For starters, most ISPs aren't particularly keen on having their customers share access to the Internet connections they provide. Fortunately, there are some notable exceptions (Seattle-based Speakeasy comes to mind), and the trend seems to be moving toward fewer restrictions. The odds are also relatively slim that your ISP will detect it or take action against you for connection sharing, but for now chances are that doing so means you'll be violating your ISP's terms of service.

Whisher

If you want to get a shared network up and running quickly and without any up-front costs, Whisher is worth a look. The Whisher software (which is in beta and available for Windows, Mac and Linux) is a free download, and since it operates independently of your wireless hardware, it works with pretty much any Wi-Fi router or access point.

Registering your Wi-Fi Network with Whisher requires you to provide its name, physical address, and WEP or WPA encryption key (Whisher requires networks to be encrypted). Your network information is then added to a database with that of other Whisher members' networks. Since the database is part of the Whisher software, Whisher members can use it to find and log on to each other's networks for free.

At first blush, giving out your encryption key may not seem like a particularly wise thing to do, but it's not as bad as it sounds because your encryption key is known only by Whisher's software and isn't exposed to the member. Because they never actually see your key, Whisher members can't share it with anyone else. Whisher also lets owners of member networks limit access to specific users (via an IM-like buddy list) or block access altogether.

But there are still security issues to consider. Since you're giving other Whisher members access to the same network you use personally, your systems have more exposure risk than if your network were off-limits to strangers &mdah; at the very least, properly-configured software firewalls are a good idea. There's also no way to limit the amount of wireless bandwidth used by Whisher members, so lots of simultaneous visitors could slow down your network.

FON

FON's Wi-Fi sharing product uses hardware rather than software, which helps to mitigate some of the potential security and performance limitations of Whisher's approach. Using a specially designed router, FON provides a Wi-Fi signal that's divided into public (open) and private (encrypted) segments. This provides better security by letting you keep your own systems walled off from those of guests. You can also limit the bandwidth used by the public segment, guaranteeing you a certain amount for your own use.

Sounds good, right? It is, but there are a few catches. Not too long ago FON was giving away their routers for little more than the cost of shipping. These days, though, you need to buy it at a cost of $40 (or $20 for those referred by existing FON members). The FON router also doesn't have quite as many features as a typical model from say D-Link, Linksys, or Netgear, although you can opt to keep your existing router and use the FON hardware as more of an access point.

If you'd rather make a few bucks by sharing your network, FON will let you do that too, by charging users $3 for daily access to your network (or $10 for five days) and splitting the net revenue with you. Your ultimate take is somewhat less than 50% after PayPal takes its cut, and by charging for yours you'll lose free access to other FON networks.

WeFi

WeFi's beta software (which is currently only available for Windows XP) offers roving users a way to find nearby free Wi-Fi networks as well as map their own for use by others. WeFi is similar to Whisher, but for now only seems to work with open (i.e. non-encrypted) networks. Since by definition an open network is available to anyone, not just other WeFi users, it's not the right choice for someone concerned about security.

There you have it. Those looking to share their own Wi-Fi networks and take advantage of others' have several choices. For more details on FON and Whisher, check out reviews of each at Wi-Fi Planet, and stay tuned for a review of WeFi in the near future.

Wi-Lan exits equipment, highlighting patents issue for WiMAX players

Rethink Research

  • Wi-Lan likely first of many specialists to leave WiMAX equipment market
  • Will now focus on patents business but may need to build on Cisco deal
  • Other companies will find it hard to survive without large partners
  • Patents remain issue says Forum, but 802.16e testing the most pressing issue
  • Regional expansion sought for testing facilities

In a standards-based equipment market, volume is key to competitiveness, and smaller suppliers will only survive if they have significant intellectual property over and above the standard. The Wi-Fi market is in the process of consolidating and it will soon be WiMAX' turn. We have already seen Proxim and Terabeam merging, and now Wi-Lan is staking its future entirely on its patents portfolio, and seeking an acquirer for its equipment business. With the certification process for 802.16-2004 fixed WiMAX kit speeding up, and mobile 802.16e on the horizon, this will certainly be the first of many upheavals in the once cosy world of broadband wireless vendors.

Wi-Lan:

Canadian Wi-Lan has had one of the most tumultuous histories since the broadband wireless market started to converge on Wi- MAX. It has been in financial difficulties, and undergone a series of reorganizations, over the past two years, but has clung to its claims of significant intellectual property holdings in Wi-MAX and other OFDM technologies such as 5GHz Wi-Fi. Wi-Lan believes its portfolio of patents, including its core WOFDM patents and 17 patents and patent applications acquired from now defunct WiMAX pioneer Ensemble Communications in May 2004, are necessary for the implementation of devices using the IEEE 802.16 and ETSI HiperMANas well as Wi-Fi variants 802.11a and 802.11g and ETSI HiperLAN/2.

These claims led it to take the bold move of suing Cisco, and it gained licensing agreements with its key technology partner, Fujitsu Microelectronics, with whom it codeveloped the Fujitsu WiMAX system on a chip.

However, despite some licensing wins, Wi-Lan did not succeed in gaining the Qualcomm-style universal recognition of its patents that it had hoped for. Indeed, it was widely rumored that Qualcomm was interested in acquiring Wi-Lan as part of its bid to assemble its own OFDM patent arsenal, but instead it opted for Flarion, a move that suggested to many that Wi-Lan's IP was less attractive than the company had hoped.

Cisco did show some interest, and may still be Wi-Lan's main salvation, as the networking giant seeks to flesh out its mobile IP and OFDM patents store in an intellectual property stand-of that looks increasingly likely with Qualcomm. In December Cisco came to a settlement with Wi-Lan, and licensed all the smaller company's patents and, significantly, acquired some of them for itself, in the WiMAX and smart antenna areas. Like Qualcomm with the acquisition of Flarion, Cisco is building up its patent stores in key technology areas, and more of Wi-Lan's intellectual property may also be snapped up.

Specialists survive?

Now the company plans to phase out its struggling equipment making arm and focus entirely on its patents - a move that we can expect to see from other smaller vendors. Unless they can gain significant OEM partnerships - as Alvarion has with Alcatel and others, and Airspan with Ericsson and Nortel - these specialists may find it hard to compete with the giants. As it is, most of the current OEM deals are in the fixed WiMAX world, a relatively niche market for backhaul and traditional BWA, that is of limited interest to the giant vendors and so could continue to support growth for the niche players as the better economics of WiMAX kick in. Redline, for instance, has a strong track record in backhaul on which it will continue to build in the fixed WiMAX market.

In the 802.16e market, focused on consumer access, triple play and, eventually, mobility, the large suppliers that are most serious about WiMAX, such as Nortel, are set to develop their own products, loosening their ties with the specialists. This will create a degree of shake-out in the 2007-8 timeframe, but at least those companies with a strong partnership for 802.16-2004 have a breathing space to extend their business in other directions - especially though licensing, as we have seen SR Telecom doing - or secure an attractive acquisition. For Wi-Lan there was no such luxury, as its cashflow was weak, and it had failed to gain a big name licensee. It will now phase out the equipment business by the end of April, saying this arm was not profitable and the company has been "unable to sustain the costs of development expense of its products while also growing the intellectual property business".

In August, it had already split off the IP unit as part of a move to take a more focused approach. This had earlier led it to place most of its Mobilis high speed transport- oriented technology into the hands of a Korean partner.

Wi-LAN's Mobilis pre 802.16e technology


It said it is now looking for potential buyers for the equipment business and is "working with several other companies to form new approaches to market its existing IP systems, patent portfolio and expertise, and to develop new IP products for the wireless fixed and mobile markets". It is to be hoped that the new strategy does not merely turn Wi-Lan into a patent hoarder seeking to take aggressive action against product developers, an increasing common situation in the wireless world and one that merely serves to confuse the market and delay systems roll-out.

Intellectual property issues:

The intellectual property issue remains one of the uncertainties surrounding the progress of WiMAX. As well as the lurking threat that Qualcomm may claim patent rights to some aspects of 802.16e systems, particularly in the mobile IP area, the policies of the IEEE and WiMAX Forum on licensing have always been vague and unenforceable, especially with the accelerating trend for standards bodies to take existing de facto standards on board in order to speed time to market, rather than starting from scratch. Many players - including a group of large cellcos led by Vodafone, which recently achieved a significant shift in EU rules on patent claims - are calling for all intellectual property claims to be declared up-front during standards development, or relinquished, to avoid the rising risk of "patent ambushes" when claims emerge only when a standard has been approved and is gaining market momentum.

Jeff Orr, executive at the WiMAX Forum and head of marketing, agreed the process is complex: "We need 'reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) policies on intellectual property but if a standards body has the intention to use a de facto technology, RAND is hard to implement". This could clearly apply to Qualcomm and its likely attempt to push its newly acquired Flarion Flash-OFDM technology as the basis for the 802.20 standard for mobile broadband, a potential alternative to 802.16e.

Progress on certification:


Patents are not the only complex issue facing the Forum, of course, as it races to meet the market's expectations for certification of 802.16e equipment. Despite the long and often badly communicated process of getting the first 802.16-2004 gear out of the certification labs, run by Cetecom in Spain, the process does now seem to have gained momentum for the fixed wireless products, and confidence is growing. It is very important that this is maintained for the more critical 802.16e standard, and the Forum is showing signs of rising to that challenge.

Part of the problem for the initial testing effort was the expansion of WiMAX' remit and market profile during the run-up to its standardization. From being a somewhat obscure technology for traditional fixed wireless and backhaul, it had taken on the mantle of being a mainstream consumer access and mobile network capable of delivering a triple play service for a major operator, and so had gained huge new political significance and the interest of many large players. This meant that the scope of the WiMAX Forum's work had to stretch almost beyond its resources For instance, Orr says far more products joined the queue for first stage certification than had been expected, and Cetecom has had to adjust its resources to meet the demand and ensure that companies can get into line within a few weeks.

So far, a handful of 802.16-2004 products for the 3.5GHz FDD (frequency division duplex) profile have been certified of a total of over 30 in line, and the first 3.5GHz TDD systems will soon emerge too. The certification of 5.8Ghz fixed WiMAX gear will take place in parallel and will start as soon as a testbed of at least three products is checked into the lab to form the basis for the testing. Defining the 5.8GHz process should start within a few months and the actual certification will be quicker than for 3.5GHz, as areas like protocol conformance are common across different bands.

The Forum is now looking for ways to expand its laboratory facilities, either by using other Cetecom locations and/or signing new partners. This will be essential to cope with the addition of 802.16e to the process - validation of test processes for the initial 802.16e profiles, which are currently under review, is expected to start around August, with the first certified products emerging at the turn of the year, though some vendors like Motorola will launch pre-certified gear that is built to the 'e' specifications but only tested unofficially.

Addressing new geographies:

Additional lab capacity will also be needed as WiMAX continues to expand its remit - new profiles are being considered, particularly to meet the frequency allocations in special case markets like Japan and Russia. The aim, according to Orr, is to have mainstream testing centers for 802.16e in the three key geographies - Europe, Americas and Asia-Pacific - and some localized labs for countries with specialized profile require ments, notably Japan, China and Korea. The Forum is facing the classic dilemma of a would-be global wireless network reducing the standard to just a few profiles encourages uniformity, volume and attractive pricing, as well as appealing to operators with support for global roaming; but some important markets will not harmonize their spectrum policies for years to come and must not be excluded. This dilemma afflicted 5GHz Wi-Fi but was relatively easily solved since there was only one major profile affected and many countries are moving into line with ITU guidelines on license-exempt 5GHz rules. For Wi-MAX, with profiles in licensed bands that are different allocated and governed in different regions, the challenge is far more complex.

To try to keep important economies, despite their peculiar spectrum maps, in the WiMAX fold, the Forum is recruiting 'champions' in key growth markets to promote the technology with operators and regulators. Initially these will be in China, India, Brazil and Russia.

The WiMAX certification process and cycles - Source: WiMAX Forum

international activity, and the broadening scope and acceleration of certification, both reflect the high ambitions of Wi-MAX. Intellectual property issues are one risk area that need to be addressed in a coherent manner, and this may be complicated by the increasing reliance of small vendors on their patents store as they become less able to compete on the sales front. It is important that specialists with important technology to add value to WiMAX gain their success through positive means - by attracting partners to license their platforms through the strength of those products' performance (Aperto is a good example), not purely by patent hoarding. As 802.16e appears and certified products start to flood the market on the fixed side too, the specialists will need to build quickly on their unique strengths in OFDM expertise and broadband wireless intellectual property, if they are not to be swamped by the majors.


The Real WiMAX Advantage

By: Andy Fuertes - Visant Strategies

Smart antennas use, OFDMA and specifically the spectral efficiency of OFDMA are routinely offered as the advantages of a mobile WiMAX. The true competitive strengths of WiMAX may prove to be elsewhere.

Intelligent antennas are on the road map of every major standard not just WiMAX, including those from the 3GPP (WCDMA) and 3GPP2 (CDMA) and the emerging 802.20 standard. Existing mobile carriers are unlikely to deploy intelligent antennas with a new air interface initially for coverage or capacity since these carriers already possess substantial tower assets and existing mobile carriers generally scale capacity on new services and/or air interfaces gradually to meet initial and limited demand for those services. Thus WiMAX may have a time advantage in implementation of intelligent antennas but that gain will be neutralized by mobile carriers themselves.

OFDMA is also on the road map of virtually every major standard, including those mentioned above. 3GPP2, perhaps through the standardization of FLASH-OFDM, stands to be the first group to offer a mobile, deployment ready version of OFDMA. 3GPP will follow and 802.20 could ratify an OFDMA standard by late 2006.

Equally important are the benefits of OFDMA, especially when pertaining to spectral efficiency in a wide area, multi-cellular, mobile environment, remain unproven regarding the implementation which WiMAX purveyors and most others will use.

The advantage may exist from use of the air interface but the level of improvement, especially in a challenging mobile environment, may not be as great as many are expecting. Likewise, performance may vary substantially according to implementation and performance of the MAC level, which governs how the radio spectrum is employed and which is rarely considered in RF simulations. Ultimately more testing is required now that 802.16e has been ratified and vendors are working on implementing the standard.

So what are the advantages of mobile WiMAX at the current time? WiMAX is the first truly open mobile standard (802.16e). It is governed by the IEEE's fair licensing practices and participation in the group is open and democratic compared to other groups. This is in fact revolutionary as 3GPP and 3GPP2 are ultimately consortiums and its implications are wide. This open process should lead to greater innovation and hence a better performance when moving forward and also potentially lower intellectual property licensing fees and provide for a quicker rate of change compared to that of existing mobile technologies.

A lack of history within the mobile industry is also an advantage for WiMAX vendors. For the most part, and in contrast to CDMA/GSM/WCDMA vendors, key WiMAX equipment vendors lack a mobile product line to protect. They must push the envelope on technology and move forward as they cannot rely on a steady stream of existing GSM, WCDMA, or CDMA mobile contracts. In other words, WiMAX proponents benefit from disrupting the status quo and their survival may depend on it.

WiMAX is also the first major mobile standard to offer all IP as a standard feature set. 3GPP will get there in subsequent releases but it still employs a complicated and ultimately expensive core network. Major mobile carriers, who are often also wireline or even cable operators, will seek to consolidate their core networks under IP. Doing so offers cost advantages, the ability to offer multiple services over a single platform, reductions in operating and capital expenditures, rapid application development and often a competitive edge.

In summary, we need to look beyond RF performance criteria alone when evaluating the relative merits of mobile WiMAX vs. future incarnations of existing mobile technologies due to lack of real world data and the existence of other often ignored criteria.

GSM won the 2G mobile war despite offering inferior capacity figures due to strengths in other quadrants of the competitive matrix and we can not accurately gauge the performance that FLASH-OFDM, UMTS or 802.16e air interfaces will offer in 2008 or 2009 when mobile WiMAX gear is certified and ready to ship today.