Subject: RE: Bluetooth

From: Dan Kohn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 06:54:29 -0700

I will bite regarding one issue near and dear to IETF hearts -- which is the
seeming need to buy yet another 802.11 card for each IETF meeting.  And yes,
I am actually suggesting an approach that would require one more purchase:

I was at Bluetooth Congress in Europe this month (which sounds better than
saying the Bluetooth Congress in Monte Carlo), and Bluetooth products are
definitely gathering momentum.  I expect the Ericsson wireless headset
shipping Q3 to be a killer product over the next 2 years, as people get
tired of dangling wires from headset cords and (for safety reasons) would
rather have a 1 milliwatt Bluetooth transceiver next to their head than a
300 milliwatt cellphone.

The remaining standards battle I see (now that HomeRF has been largely
killed off by Bluetooth FUD), is to settle once and for all that 802.11
should win as the wireless LAN technology of choice and that Bluetooth is
the only feasible wireless cable replacement technology that can actually
get into cellphones and other cheap digital devices.  Since the most
important attribute for 802.11 is bandwidth (its competition is 100BaseT),
while the most important attribute for Bluetooth is a $5 chip price, the
most likely outcome is for 802.11 to move up to the 5 GHz ISM band where it
can provide 54 Mbps (and up), significantly faster than the 11 Mbps
theoretically available today at 2.4 GHz, while offering the same ~$100
price point and propagation characteristics.

This would then leave the 2.4 GHz band for Bluetooth, and allow both
Bluetooth and 802.11 to be simultaneously active from the same laptop.  I
think most LANs will be wireless in a couple years simply for the
convenience of avoiding cabling (even for desktop computers), and that
people will want to sync up with their Palm Pilots and their cellphones
without having to disconnect from the network, which is the scenario today.
However, dual simultaneous use will work perfectly with Bluetooth at 2.4 GHz
and 802.11 at 5 GHz.

		- dan
--
Daniel Kohn <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Both US <tel:+1-425-602-6222> and UK <tel:+44-20-8600-1296>
 numbers forward to the same automated operator to reach me.
<http://www.dankohn.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Parkinson, Jonathan [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, 2000-06-28 07:17
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Bluetooth

Hi folks 
	Anyone care to start a discussion about Bluetooth and how it
may/will impact the future of communications ? And the new generation of
Virus's that could come along with this technology.

Thanks
Jon

> Jonathan Parkinson
> EMEA Operations Management Center.
> Remote Server and Network Management Group.
> Unix Support .
> Compaq Computer Limited 
> 
> Tel: DTN 7830 1118
> Tel: External +44 (0)118 201118
> Fax: +44 (0)118 201175
> [email-masked]
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:14:22 -0700

to me, the most salient difference between bluetooth and 802.11 is the
addressing.  with a three bit address, i see bluetooth as a viable
competitor for infrared ports.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:34:22 -0700

> seeming need to buy yet another 802.11 card for each IETF meeting.

btw, those daze are over, at least for the moment.

from the current version of draft-ymbk-termroom-op-03.txt,

   2.5 Wireless LAN
       ...
       The IETF Wireless LAN MUST support at least the 802.11-DS
       technology.

randy

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:51:33 -0700

Dan Kohn wrote:
> definitely gathering momentum.  
...
> people will want to sync up with their Palm Pilots and their cellphones

Palm syncs with laptops fine over IR now.

Joe