Wireless Networks - Applications of Bluetooth and IEEE 802.11 - Essay Example

Running head: Wireless Network Business Name Institute Date Wireless Network Introduction Wireless networking has not only attracted the attention of many people these days but also gained a lot of interest and a widespread acceptance. In part, this could be attributed to its role in facilitating applications mobility (Malik and Al-Salman, 2006). Wirelesses networks approach are simple to install, and in some cases, they cost less than wired LANs (Ferro and Potortì, 2004). As the exploitation this type of network communications increases globally, it is increasingly important to understand different technologies. The objective of this paper, therefore, is to address this knowledge gap through a comprehensive and a detailed study of wireless technology. In particular, this paper examines the arguments surrounding Bluetooth, and evaluates its potentials and possible applications with IEEE 802.11 under the outlined heading below: Comparison in the applications of Bluetooth and IEEE 802.11 Bluetooth can be defined as a standard for wireless communications based on a radio system designed for short-range (0–10 m) wireless link technology aimed at replacing non-interoperable proprietary cables that connect phones, laptops, PDAs , printers, faxes, joysticks and other portable devices together (Golmie et al,. 2003: Ferro and Potortì, 2004). Bluetooth is mainly oriented towards connections between close-connected devices, as a substitute for data transfer cables (Golmie et al. 2003: Ferro and Potortì, 2004). Precisely, they are designed to connect small devices like mobile phones, and peripherals at slower speeds (1 Mbit/sec), within a shorter range (30 feet, or 10 meters), which reduces power requirements. On the other hand, IEEE 802.11 is devoted to connections among computers, as an extension or substitute for cabled LANs (Ferro and Potortì, 2004). They connect relatively large devices with lots of power and speed and devices communicate at up to 11 Mbit/sec, at greater distances (up to 300 feet, or 100 meters). In a more recent work, Bhavneet, Hardeep and Chhabra (2007) specified that unlike IEEE 802.11, Bluetooth is intended for such target areas like wireless USB's, handsets and phones. The devices could also be used for communications between portable computers, act as bridges between other networks, or serve as nodes of unplanned networks in the form of a range of applications called WPAN (Wireless Personal Area Network). Another unique feature of Bluetooth is that while it is majorly intended for portable equipment and its applications under category outlined as the wireless personal area network (WPAN). IEEE 802.11 standard Wi-Fi is intended as a replacement for cabling for general local area network access in work areas and provides wireless connectivity to devices that require a quick installation, such as portable computers, PDAs, or generally mobile devices, category of applications sometimes called wireless local area networks (WLAN). It describes the MAC processes for accessing the objective medium that may be infrared or radio frequency. Mobility is tackled at the MAC layer; hence handoff between neighboring cells is translucent to layers created on top of IEEE 802.11 equipment (Ferro and Potortì, 2004). Unlike Blue tooth which is associated with WPAN, the most common use of 802.11 technologies is for LAN data access, and correctly provisioning such a network implies more than just providing adequate coverage. The speculative utmost throughput may be employed to aid best network provisioning, both for information and as multimedia appliances. However, in the case of unprepared networks, it turns out to be a primary factor influencing topological distribution of nodes (Jun et al. 2003; Maamar et al 2011). Apart from the differences, both Bluetooth and IEEE 802.11 standards also share have some similar applications: They are all wireless communication protocols operating in the 2.4 GHz unlicensed ISM frequency band (Golmie et al, 2003) in particularly, this can be seen in setting up networks, printing, or transferring files. According to Sedrati and his colleques, Bluetooth is a low-powered networking service that supports several protocol profiles, but most importantly files transfer (Maamar et al 2011). Similarly, with appropriate configuration to set up shared resources, IEEE 802.11 can be able to transmit files, as well as to come up with audio connections, connect phones and hands-free equipments. Apart from this, it also uses the same radio frequencies as Bluetooth, though with relatively higher power, resulting in higher bit rates and better range from the base station. The benefits on Bluetooth compared with 802.11 Bluetooth offers a range of benefits compared to IEEE 802.11. According to Govardhani Immadi and his colleques, the Bluetooth technology provides short range of wireless connections between electronic devices like mobile phones and many others thereby exchanging voice, data and video (Immadi et al., 2011). In terms of cost, Bluetooth is cheaper than 802.11. According to Davies (2010), 802.11 uses direct –sequence spread spectrum instead of frequency hopping. It is higher-powered, higher cost scheme than Bluetooth. In the words of Davies, chip cost of an implementation is likely to be three times as great as Bluetooth chip cost. Again, Bluetooth is intended for portable products, short ranges, and limited battery power. Accordingly, it provides extremely little power usage and, in some instances, will not visibly influence battery life while IEEE 802.11 is intended for longer-range linkages and supports equipments with a large power supply. On the average, a classic Bluetooth piece of equipment takes up from about 1 to 35 mA, whereas IEEE 802 equipment characteristically requires between 100 and 350 mA (Johansson et al, .2002). This remarkable distinction makes Bluetooth the merely convenient option for cell phone applications with low battery power. On the other hand, when greater ranges are needed and power consumption is less of an issue, Wi-Fi is usually the best solution (Ferro and Potortì, 2004). The energy efficiency, defined as successfully transmitted bits per energy unit, decreases sharply for IEEE 802.11 with bigger number of PANs, whereas Bluetooth retains a steady level. Moreover, packet delays have demonstrated to be more constant for the Bluetooth PAN compared with IEEE 802.11 PAN as the number of PANs increases (Johansson et al, .2002). Moreover, Bluetooth can also simultaneously facilitate or handle both information and voice transmissions which enable users to enjoy a wide range and variety of innovation solutions such as a hands-free headset for voice calls, printing and fax capabilities, and synchronizing PDA, laptop, and mobile phone applications. An additional benefit is that Bluetooth technology’s ad hoc network topology offers communication flexibility and scalability between devices (Huang et al, 2005). In particular, it enhances Ease with which a file can be shared among different devices. This device can easily form ad hoc wireless networks to support file sharing capabilities between multiple Bluetooth devices. For example, participants of a meeting with Bluetooth-compatible laptops could establish a piconet and share files with each other (Bonald and Proutiere, 2002). This is possible because Bluetooth networks consist of essential units, described as piconets, which may contain a maximum of 7 nodes. According to Ching Law and his group, these units are used to form larger networks, described as scatternets, by having some nodes on multiple piconets. In addition, Bluetooth uses a frequency hopping scheme for communication between multiple nodes on the network. A node can be on two networks simultaneously if it knows the accurate hopping cycle of both networks and hops quick enough compared to IEEE 802.11 networks (Ching Law et al., 2002). Bluetooth is supported by a variety of devices and applications in terms of internet connectivity. Some of these devices include mob8//ile phones, PDAs, laptops, desktops, and fixed telephones. On the other hand, IEEE 802.11 tools are moderately restricted. Internet connectivity is possible owing to the fact that when these devices and technologies join to they share capabilities. In the case of a laptop, using a Bluetooth connection, can request a mobile phone to establish a dial-up connection; the laptop can then access the Internet through the connection established by the mobile phone (Davies, 2010). Bluetooth also provides automatic synchronization between Bluetooth enabled wireless devices. For example, contact information contained in electronic address books and date books as well as email can be synchronized between PDAs, laptops, mobile phones, and other devices via the use of Bluetooth. In contrast to IEEE 802.11, Bluetooth sustains both voice synchronous connection oriented (SCO) information and asynchronous connection less (ACL) packets (Mathew et al, 2010). Unlike IEEE 802.11, Bluetooth device can send both voice and data packets through a radio channel with a data rate of 1Mbps. According to Anil Mathew and his group, Bluetooth communication is completed by Synchronous Connection Oriented (SCO) connection. They argue that the SCO link is a symmetric point to point voice link for sending and receiving voice packets at regular intervals of time and the SCO packets are transmitted in only every sixth slot. This period of time is equivalent to 3.75 ms while the revisit course of communication from the slave to master occurs on the subsequently slot. In addition, Bluetooth can sustain utmost three voice calls at the same time (Mathew et al., 2010). How are IEEE 802.11 standards changing to meet the competition from standards like Bluetooth? IEEE 802.11 standard has come a long way particularly in a bid to meet the challenges from other standard like Blue tooth. Development of the IEEE 802.11n has been initiated to allow rates of at least 100 Mbps, essentially doubling the existing maximum rate of 54 Mbps for the 802.11a/g specifications. IEEE 802.11 Also adopted data compression, a technique to basically intend to optimize the data transfer rate in wireless networks and to improve the QoS of the WLAN network. In view of Acharya, Vityanathan and Chellaih, (2010) reduction in the effective size of the data to be transferred on the network generally leads to reduction of the successful file transfer time and therefore conserves the network energy. In addition, they have also argued that the performed work exhibits the conservation of energy in both transfer of file over the network, by reducing the file transfer time through the compression and decompression mechanism performed at server and client side respectively, apart from this the energy of the battery consumed at both ends of the network is also saved (Acharya, Vityanathan and Chellaih, 2010). In terms of security, IEEE 802.11 has evolved to IEEE 802.1X standard which can make it possible to implement security mechanism on all local 802 networks on IEEE 802.11. This has been particularly facilitated by virtue of the fact that access points use the enabling protocol like EAP for Authentication making it possible to support multiple authentication methods like certificates, chip cards. At the moment, 802.1 xs is one of the widely used device or security standard supported by numerous access points’ equipments and operating systems (Pujolle Ed (2007). Prior to 802.1 xs, there was an introduction of IEEE 802.11i standard which defined the security specifications of IEEE 802.11 series Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN). This was a replacement of the old security standard, Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP), and aimed at eliminating all known attacks against WEP. In addition, it offered the solutions to the privacy, mutual validation and reliability features of the WLAN safety measures except the accessibility aspect (Wang, Srinivasan and Bhattacharjee, 2011). Another evolution is in the form of 802.11n which is associated with far better bandwidth, enhanced variety, and consistency consequently advantageous in a variety of network configurations. This network permits Voice over IP (VoIP) which has really attracted consumers who can now save money on long distance phone calls by using the Internet instead of traditional phone service. This has also facilitated streaming video and music which was not possible with the former IEEE 802.11. Apart from video and music it can also be very useful in Gaming, an application that increasingly is making use of home WLANs, whether users connect (Sidhu, Singh, and Chhabra, 2007). The latest prototype is the IEEE 802.11 Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol, is one of the most implemented protocols in this network thus a good comparison to Blue tooth network. The IEEE 802.11 controls the access to the share wireless channel within competing stations. The IEEE 802.11 DCF doubles the Contention Window (CW) size for decreasing the collision within contending stations and to improve the network performances (Priakanth and Thangaraj, 2009). What are the advantages and disadvantages of Bluetooth security compared with IEEE 802.11? One major advantage of blue tooth is that it allows link Key generation where two associated devices simultaneously derive link keys during the initialization phase when users enter an identical PIN into one or both devices, depending on the configuration and device type consequently, the PIN entry, device association, and key derivation are depicted (Scarfone and Dicoi, 2007). Again, it allows automatic authentication in that after initialization is complete, the blue tooth devices can automatically and transparently authenticate and initiate the encryption procedure to secure the wireless link, if encryption is enabled. It is therefore possible to create a link key using higher layer key exchange methods and then import the link key into the Bluetooth units. According to Scarfone and Dicoi, (2007) the PIN code applied in Bluetooth equipments may differ between 1 and 16 bytes. The two scholars argue that unlike IEEE 802.11, the Bluetooth verification process is in the form of a “challenge-response” system where there are devices interacting devices called claimant and the verifier acting in this authentication procedure. The former is that the equipment trying to verify its individuality and the latter is the device validating the identity of the claimant. The challenge-response procedure authenticates equipments by confirming the information of the Bluetooth link key, which is a secret key. On the other hand, in terms of Access Control and Authentication, the original IEEE 802.11 specification defines only two means to validate the identities of wireless devices attempting to gain access to a WLAN, open system authentication and shared key authentication; In the words of Scarfone and Dicoi, (2007) neither of these alternatives is secure. Bluetooth is also advantageous in that it allows confidentiality, offering a separate privacy service to prevent snooping shots on the payloads of the packets substituted between Bluetooth equipments (Scarfone and Dicoi, 2007). This is possible because Bluetooth has three Encryption Modes, however just two of them really offer privacy. The modes include Encryption Mode 1 where No encryption is performed on any traffic, Encryption Mode 2 here Individually addressed traffic is encrypted using encryption keys based on individual link keys; broadcast traffic is unencrypted. And lastly, Encryption Mode 3 where all traffic is encrypted using an encryption key based on the master link key (Huang et al., 2005; Scarfone and Dicoi, 2007). Bluetooth facilitates Trust Levels, Service Levels, and Authorization attributed to its three mode of security. It permits two levels of trust, that is trusted and untrusted and three levels of service safety. Trusted devices have a set connection with equipment and have complete access to every service. An untrusted Bluetooth tool lack a recognized association with another Bluetooth tool and these ends up in the untrusted tool getting limited access to services. Unlike Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11 implementations are required to support open system authentication; shared key authentication support is optional. Scarfone and Dicoi, (2007) argue that Open system authentication is effectively a null authentication mechanism that does not provide true identity verification. In addition, open system authentication does not provide reasonable assurance of any identities, and can be easily used by an attacker to gain unauthorized access to a WLAN or trick users into connecting to a malicious WLAN. Shared key authentication was designed to be more robust than open system authentication, but unfortunately, it is equally insecure. It is based on pre-shared secret cryptographic keys (Malik and Al-Salman, 2006; Scarfone and Dicoi, 2007 and Davies, 2010). Advantages of Bluetooth are not given exclusive of threat. Generally, Bluetooth technology or any other Bluetooth enabled devices are susceptible to the general wireless threats on several grounds. First and foremost, unit key sharing inherent in the Bluetooth enabled devices can lead to eavesdropping. Some users may be able to compromise the security between two other users if at all he or she has communicated with either of the other two users. This is attributed to the fact that the link key or unit key, resulting from shared data, has been revealed. Another shortcoming of Bluetooth is that it does permit Short PINs. Consequently, these weak PINs, utilized for the creation of link and encryption keys, may be simply guessed compromising security. In addition, Bluetooth lacks PIN management since establishing PINs in large Bluetooth networks with many users could be very difficult this again, yield security problems (Malik and Al-Salman, 2006). How is the Bluetooth standard evolving to meet new requirements? Just like IEEE 802.11, Bluetooth Standard has also come in a bid to meeting new requirement. One way has been through adoption of a layer 2 multi-hop subnet for global IP network, however again, there are two missing protocols including network formation and routing. This has resulted in performance degradation. However, this can be corrected by evolving further. According to Huang et al (2005), adoption of a flexible scatternet formation algorithm under conference scenario for multi-hop communication is one way that can correct performance degradation. According to these scholars, Huang and his colleques, using the flexible scatternet formation algorithm under conference scenario for multi-hop communication, scatternet can be formed flexibly with star, mesh, or linked line based on several parameters like number of maximum piconets that a gateway Bluetooth device can participate, and whether loops are needed in the resulting scatternet to achieve better network performance. Again, Cross-layer Optimized Routing for Bluetooth (CORB) could also go along in order to utilize topology information in multi-hop communication. CORB is a QoS-extended AODV routing procedure with largely two optimizations between networking layer and fundamental Bluetooth MAC layer. The primary optimization is to utilize a new load metric (LM) in QoS routing procedure rather than number of hops in predictable top attempt routing. This suggestion may assist routing procedure to avoid greatly burdened nodes, and discover route with better bandwidth. Alternatively, LM and a number of MAC layer factors could also be adjusted in reaction to the unsteady network topology brought about by movement and alteration of inside radio state (Huang et al, 2005). Currently, there is Bluetooth 4.0 that consists of classic Bluetooth protocols and the HS protocol as part of its core specification to ensure a high level of compatibility with older devices and accessories. According to Huang et al, (2005), the 4.0 specification is associated with a new low-energy protocol to reduce power consumption and extend battery life. Concluding remarks This paper has presented an overview of emerging wireless technologies with particular emphasis to Bluetooth which according to the findings seems to be more appropriate considering its benefits compared to IEEE 802.11stardard. However, the two standards have equally evolved to meet the competing new requirements and challenges. More studies are still needed in this area so as o open other possibilities. Reference Acharya, R., Vityanathan, V., Chellaih, P. (2010) WLAN QoS Issues and IEEE 802.11e QoS Enhancement International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 1793-8201,pg 143- 149, 1 February, 2010 Bhavneet S., Hardeep S., and Chhabra, A. (2007) Emerging Wireless Standards - WiFi, ZigBee and WiMAX World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 25 pp 308-313 Bonald, T., and Proutiere, A., (2002) Insensitivity in processor–sharing networks, Performance Evaluation, vol. 49, pp. 193–209 Davies, A.C., (2010) An overview of Bluetooth Wireless Technology TM and some competing LAN standards IEEE, Pages: 206-211 Ferro, E. and Potortì, F., (2004) Bluetooth and Wi-Fi Wireless Protocols: A Survey and A Comparison IEEE Wireless Communications magazine, June, 2004 Golmie, N., Van Dyck, R.E., Soltanian, A., Tonnerre, A., and Rébala, O., (2003) Interference Evaluation of Bluetooth and IEEE 802.11b Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Wireless Networks 9, 201–211 Huang, L., Chen, H., Sivakumar, T.V.L.N., Kashima, T., Sezaki, K., (2005) "Impact of topology on Bluetooth Scatternet", International Journal of Pervasive Computing and Communications, Vol. 1 Iss: 2, pp.123 – 134 Immadi, G., Tejaswi, M.S.R.S, Venkata N.M., Anil B. N., Anupama, G., and Venkata R. T. K., (2011) Design of Coaxial fed Microstrip Patch Antenna for 2.4GHz Bluetooth Applications, Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, VOL. 2, and NO. 12, December 2011 Jun, J., Peddabachagari, P., Sichitiu, M., (2003) Theoretical Maximum Throughput of IEEE 802.11 and its Applications, Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications (NCA’03) Johannson, P., Kapoor, R., Kazantzidis, M., and Gerla, M., (2002) Personal Area Networks: Blue tooth ot IEE 802.11? International Journal of Wireless Information Networks vol 9, No 2 April, 2002 Maamar, S., Maamri R., Azeddine, B., and Mohamedm, B., (2011) Contention Window Optimization: an enhancement to IEEE 802.11 DCF to improve Quality of Service, International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC) 1(1): 273-283 Malik, A., and Al-Salman, S., (2006) "Broadcasting commercial advertising using Bluetooth technology", International Journal of Web Information Systems, Vol. 2 Iss: 2, pp.135 –141 Mathew, A., Chandrababu, N., Elleithy, K., and Rizvi, S., (2010) Interference Of 802.11b WLAN and Bluetooth: Analysis and Performance Evaluation International journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC), Vol.2, No.3, May 2010 Priakanth, P. and Thangaraj, P., (2009). A Channel Adaptive Energy Efficient and Fair Scheduling Media Access Control Protocol for Mobile AdHoc Networks. J. Comput. Sci., 5: 57-63. Pujolle G., ed (2007) Management, Control and evolution of IP networks, ISTE Ltd, United Kingdom Scarfone, K. and Dicoi, D., (2007) Wireless Network Security for IEEE 802.11a/b/g and Bluetooth: Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST Special Publication 800-48 Revision 1 (Draft) Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930 August 2007 Wang, L., Srinivasan, B., Bhattacharjee, N., (2011) Security Analysis and Improvements on WLANs journal of Networks, Vol 6, No 3 (2011), 470-481, Mar 2011 Read More