BLUETOOTH VS.
WI-FI:
CATS AND DOGS LIVIVNG
TOGETHER
BLUETOOTH AND WI-FI --
DIFFERENT ANIMALS:
Bluetooth technology was developed to create a
short-range wireless voice and data link between
a broad range of devices such as PCs, notebook
computers, handhelds and PDAs (hereafter
referred to as PDAs), Smart Phones, mobile
phones and digital cameras. Consistent with its
aim of operating in even the smallest battery-
powered devices, the Bluetooth specification
calls for a small form factor, low power
consumption and low cost. The range and speed
of the technology were kept intentionally low so
as to ensure maximum battery life and minimum
incremental cost for devices incorporating the
technology. At its heart, Bluetooth is about
creating a Wireless Personal Area Network
(WPAN) consisting of all the Bluetooth-enabled
electronic devices immediately surrounding a
user, wherever that user may be located.
The IEEE 802.11 standard was designed to be
the best solution for a single specific application:
wireless Ethernet. It is implemented in PCs,
laptops, PDAs and network access points and is
meant to offer comparable performance to wired
Ethernet LANs. Wi-Fi offers benefits to users
that wish to gain LAN or Internet access while
moving about an office or traveling and to small
to mid-sized organizations seeking a rapid LAN
deployment. At its heart, Wi-Fi is about enabling
wireless LAN access for computer and other
portable device users.
INTRODUCTION:
Bluetooth is a Wireless Personal Area
Networking (WPAN) protocol designed as a
cable-replacement technology providing a low
cost, low power, modest speed, and short range
(<10 meters) radio communications. Originated
in 1999, it is intended to provide robust services
to small ad hoc networks. Since security is
essential to many wireless applications, the
Bluetooth specifications include security
mechanisms at various levels of their protocol
stack.
Bluetooth is secure in that it employs several
layers of data encryption and user authentication
measures. Bluetooth devices use a combination
of the Personal Identification Number (PIN) and
a Bluetooth address to identify other Bluetooth
devices. Data encryption (i.e., 128-bit) can be
used to further enhance the degree of Bluetooth
security. The transmission scheme (FHSS)
provides another level of security in itself.
Instead of transmitting over one frequency
within the 2.4 GHz band, Bluetooth radios use a
fast frequency-hopping spread spectrum (FHSS)
technique, allowing only synchronized receivers
to access the transmitted data. The Bluetooth
radio transmissions will conform to the safety
standards required by the countries where the
technology will be used with respect to the
affects of radio transmissions on the human
body. Emissions from Bluetooth enabled devices
will be no greater than emissions from industry-
standard cordless phones. The Bluetooth module
will not interfere or cause harm to public or
private telecommunications network.
Bluetooth is a convenient way for
communicating for a personal network, but it is
not suitable as a LAN replacement, or in
perennial data transfer. But the growing
popularity of laptops necessitated the need for a
wireless standard that would allow the people to
walk around their laptops and still be connected
to a network. Wi-Fi, an abbreviation for Wireless
Fidelity, is a wireless standard that promises
modularity while offering data rates comparable
on those a wired LAN. Wi-Fi is a collection of
standards ratified by the IEEE (Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineering). In 1997,
IEEE approved the 802.11 standard which laid
down the specifications in wireless LAN.
Subsequently, revisions were made to this
standard and these resulted in three other
standards, namely 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g.
The entire family of 802.11 standards are
collectively called Wi-Fi. Hence, Wi-Fi or short
for "Wireless Fidelity" is the term for a high-
frequency wireless local area network (WLAN).
ORIGIN:
In 1994, Ericsson Mobile Communications, the
global telecommunications company based in
Sweden, initiated a study to investigate the
feasibility of a low-power, low-cost radio
interface between mobile phones and their
accessories. The aim of the study was to find a
way to eliminate cables between mobile phones
and PC cords, headsets, desktops and other
devices. The study was part of the larger project
investigating how different communications
devices could be connected to the cellular
network via mobile phones. The company
determined that the last link in such a connection
should be short-range radio link. As the project
progressed, it became clear that the applications
for a short-range radio link were virtually
unlimited.
Ericsson’s work in this area caught the attention
of IBM, Intel, Nokia and Toshiba. The
companies formed a Bluetooth Special Interest
Group (SIG) in May 1998, which grew to over
1500 member companies by April 2000 faster
than any other wireless consortium has grown.
The companies jointly developed the Bluetooth
1.0 specification, which was released in July
1999. The specification consists of two
documents:
• The foundation core: This provides
design specification.
• The foundation profile: This
provides interoperability
guidelines.
The core document specifies components such as
radio, base band, link manager, service discovery
protocol, transport layer, and interoperability
with different communication protocols. The
profile document specifies the protocols and
procedures required for different types of
Bluetooth applications.
The five founding companies of Bluetooth SIG
were joined by 3Com, Lucent, Microsoft and
Motorola to form the Promoter Group. The
charter of Promoter Group is to lead the efforts
of the Bluetooth SIG by creating a forum for
enhancing the Bluetooth specification and
providing vehicle for interoperability testing.
The 802 .11b standard was developed at the end
of 1990’s and finally approved at the beginning
of 1999. The first data transmission devices
based on the standard were launched in 2000.
Wi-Fi devices were designed for corporate
clients to replace traditional cable networks. A
wire network required a thorough design of the
network topology and manual laying of hundreds
of meters of cable, sometimes in the most
unexpected places. Whereas all it takes to
organize a wireless network is to install several
base stations at one or several spots in the office
(a central receiver and transmitter with an
antenna connected to an outside network or a
server) and insert a network card with an
antenna. After that, both people and computers
can be moved freely, and even changing offices
wouldn’t damage the network.
In the United States, a company had
offered in December 2003 to make the whole of
San Francisco Wi-Fi. In Spain, Telephonic
launched the services ADSL Wi-Fi, which has
led it to sign various agreements with public
centers, like hotels or convention centers, to
install access points. The operator has created
almost 400 hotstops. Some educational institutes
offering Wi-Fi are Pathways World School,
Guraon while most IITs and IIMs, Anna
University, Annamalai University, and
International School of Business (ISB) in
Hyderabad, Mount Zion College of Engineering
and Technology have also become hotspots.
MAIN FEATURES:
BLUETOOTH TECHNOLOGY:-
o It is wireless
o It is inexpensive.
o You don’t have to think about it i.e.,
does not require you to do anything
special to make it work.
o Operates in the 2.56 GHz ISM band,
which is globally available.
o Uses FHSS (Frequency Hopping Spread
Spectrum)
o Can support up to 8 devices in the Pico
net.
o Omni-directional, non line of sight
transmissions through walls.
o 10m to 100m range.
o 1mW power.
o Extended range with external power
amplifier (100m).
o Its main strength is its ability to
simultaneously handle both data and
voice transmissions.
o It is capable of supporting one
asynchronous data channel and up to
three synchronous voice channels, or
 one channel supporting both voice and
data.
WI-FI TECHNOLOGY:-
o Wi-Fi networks operate in the
unlicensed 2.4 and 5 GHz radio bands,
with an 11 Mbps (802.11b) or 54 Mbps
(802.11a) or 100Mbps (802.11g) data
rate or with products that contain both
bands (dual band), so they can provide
real-world performance similar to the
basic 10BaseT wired Ethernet networks
used in many offices.
o Modulation used in 802.11 has
historically been phase-shift keying
(PSK). The modulation method selected
for 802.11b is known as complementary
code keying or CCK, which makes
possible high data speed and is less
susceptible to multipath-propagation
interference.
o It's powerful.
o Wi-Fi networks use radio technologies
called IEEE 802.11b, IEEE 802.11b and
IEEE 802.11g to provide reliable, fast
wireless connectivity.
o A Wi-Fi network can be used to connect
computers to each other, to the Internet,
and to wired networks (which use IEEE
802.3 or Ethernet).
ADVANTAGES:
BLUETOOTH TECHNOLOGY:-
It attempts to provide advantages over IrDA
(Infrared Data Association) and Home RF
(Radio Frequency). IrDA is popular in PC
peripherals but is severely limited by short
connection distance of 1m and by line of sight
requirement for communication. It eliminates the
feasibility of using IrDA for hidden computing.
Due to its RF nature Bluetooth is not subject to
such limitations. In addition to wireless device
connections up to 10m (and up to 100m if
transmitter power is increased), devices need not
be within line of sight and may connect through
walls or other non-metal objects.
Bluetooth could also be used in home-
networking applications. There is a need for
networks that are simple to install and maintain.
Wireless connections circumvent the hassle of
adding wiring to existing residences. Other
technologies cost more than $100 per node.
Bluetooth is designed to be low cost – eventually
under $10 per unit. It is now $5 per unit.
WI-FI TECHNOLOGY:-
First, Wi-Fi is cheap and fast. It's cheap,
compared to 3G. It's already here and its near-
term rollout appears more widespread than 3G
will be. The price of a basic Wi-Fi access point
has declined from approximately $1900 in 1997
to about $70 today (see "Wi-Fi 101" for an
overview of the technology). But it is expensive
compared to Bluetooth.
Second, its standards based (IEEE 802.11b);
therefore, consumers are not tied to proprietary
technology. Since Wi-Fi is not based on
proprietary technology, it ideally should allow
many companies to enter the market and
competitively hasten its evolution. Also, the
standard has been improved. IEEE 802.11g,
which operates at 100 Mbps.
Third, major vendors are backing Wi-Fi. Intel is
one of the biggest proponents of Wi-Fi. It has
recently unveiled a notebook chip called Banias
that is to be the heart of a mobile brand called
"Centrino." This chip is designed specifically for
wireless computers to enable a longer battery life
and to meet the heat/thermal requirements of the
notebook and handheld markets. Other major
players eager to step into the market include, a
joint venture of AT&T, IBM, Intel (again), and
others.
Companies are finally paying particular attention
to the security of Wi-Fi networks and for good
reason. Many users do not take basic steps to
safeguard against security breaches, e.g. turning
on Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP), the
standard mechanism shipped with Wi-Fi gear
that hides wireless data and denies intruders
access to the network. (Many users do not even
bother to install a firewall program.)
Neither power line - nor phone line-based
networks provide true mobility or portability.
Wi-Fi capabilities will be extended from laptops
to other devices - mobile phones and personal
digital assistants (PDAs)
For companies, the main advantages of this
technology regarding non-mobile telephony are
reduction of costs and mobility. Connection to
the internet through Wi-Fi only requires an
access point called hotspot. Further more Wi-Fi
allows a group of users to connect themselves to
the internet from any site within range of
hotspot. However, the diffusion of 802.11 is not
limited to internal company nets: in the last six
months these access points have multiplied
significantly in public places. Hotel airline
companies are the ones most backing the
installation of access points.
DISADVANTAGES:
BLUETOOTH TECHNOLOGY:-
o Bluetooth devices are expected to be
omnipresent and at some places assess
to this devices by public users many
have to be restricted.
o Personal privacy is at risk.
o The range cant be increased without
compromising on power.
WI-FI TECHNOLOGY:-
o Wi-Fi transmissions can be ruined by
Bluetooth transmissions, since
Bluetooth hops faster than Wi-Fi.
o It consumes lot of power so it cant be
used efficiently for mobile devices.
o It’s expensive.
o It’s not very secure.
o Opponents of the technology argue
correctly that Internet service can be
affected by the user's proximity to the
access point, the number of people
using it, the speed of the server,
interference from cordless phones and
microwaves, and the user's
surroundings (i.e., radio signals are not
high powered and cannot travel through
metal, water, or other dense materials).
All of these factors can cloud Wi-Fi's
wireless allure somewhat.
o You might be wondering where 3G fits
into the Wi-Fi picture. Ultimately, the
two may complement each other. Wi-Fi
and 3G also may not even vie for the
same pool of users.
o In theory, business travelers could use
Wi-Fi to access the Internet when they
are stationary, e.g., waiting for a flight
in an airport, and 3G when they are in
motion, e.g., commuting home from
work on the train. However, this
scenario must overcome some hurdles
before it is realized. Currently, devices
cannot alternate between Wi-Fi and 3G
service, and it is uncertain when this
issue will be addressed.
USAGE SCENARIOS :
The most common usage scenario for 802.11 is
portable computing. A user with a notebook
computer moves from place-to-place within a
building or campus and maintains connection to
the LAN, via an access point, at each stop. This
portability can even extend outside the bounds of
the office to public areas such as airports, hotels
and coffee shops. In all cases, the user expects to
be able to use her computer just as she would at
the office – to connect to other computers on the
LAN, such as servers, to connect to peripherals
on the LAN, such as printers and to access the
Internet.
Bluetooth, on the other hand, supports a much
wider variety of usage scenarios, including:
• Device interoperability (also
known as cable replacement);
• Peer-to-peer collaboration between
multiple PDAs and/or notebooks;
• Notebook and PDA internet access
via mobile phone;
• PDA, notebook and PC LAN and
Internet access via Bluetooth access
points.
DEVICE INTEROPERABILITY :
The first scenario provides the fundamental basis
for the development of the Bluetooth
specification. It is, quite simply, the seamless
interconnection of multiple Bluetooth-enabled
devices that eliminates the need for cables to
connect the devices. The most obvious example
is a PC connected wirelessly to all of its
peripheral devices. Not only are cables
eliminated but the user also can place the
peripheral wherever he wishes without regard for
cable length.
Since Bluetooth supports both voice and data, a
single Bluetooth headset can be used in
conjunction with multiple consumer and
communication devices such as a desk phone, a
mobile phone, and a portable music player. The
need for separate cables and device-specific
headsets is eliminated.
PEER-TO-PEER COLLABORATION :
Bluetooth enables devices that are in close
proximity to form ad hoc networks, also known
as piconets. A piconet or WPAN can
accommodate up to eight Bluetooth-enabled
devices simultaneously, allowing any
combination of them to exchange files or other
objects, or to synchronize calendars, for
example.
This collaborative ability can also be enabled
using Wi-Fi but requires administrator
involvement to adjust the wireless LAN
(WLAN) terminals (also known as stations,
STA) for proper operation and to choose a
wireless radio channel for operation. With
Bluetooth, peer-to-peer collaboration can be ad-
hoc and instantaneous.
The collaborative application is particularly
compelling when some or all of the devices in a
piconet are PDAs or Smart Phones. These
devices, due to their small size and power
constraints are less likely to be Wi-Fi-enabled;
Bluetooth will likely to be the primary means by
which these devices communicate with each
other and with the outside world.
INTERNET CONNECTION THROUGH
MOBILE PHONE :
Bluetooth opens up a new way for notebook
computers and PDAs to access the Internet: via a
user’s own mobile phone. In fact, all of the
phone’s capabilities to access the Internet, email
or short messages will be accessible through the
Bluetooth-enabled notebook or PDA. This
communication can take place while the phone is
tucked away in a briefcase or pocket -- receiving
all of its commands via the notebook or PDA.
DIRECT NETWORK ACCESS :
Bluetooth access points (AP) can be used to
allow Bluetooth-enabled devices that are in
range of the AP to access the Internet or an
intranet directly. The AP is physically connected
to an Ethernet -- in the case of an office
environment -- or a DSL/Cable modem – in the
case of a public location -- and communicates
via Bluetooth with the PDAs, notebooks and PCs
in the surrounding piconet. Thus, multiple
devices can simultaneously use the same AP to
connect to a LAN or the Internet.
For companies that have already made an
investment in a traditional Ethernet LAN, the
addition of Bluetooth access points will create a
wireless link to a hub (AP), thus enabling
mobility within the office for devices that may
already be equipped with Bluetooth.
USAGE SUMMARY
It should be noted that Wi-Fi has seen
widespread deployment in the past year, both
within corporations and in public areas such as
airports and hotels. These deployments offer
tremendous benefits to users of devices equipped
with Wi-Fi, most notably laptop or notebook
computers. Handheld users are likely to require
Bluetooth access points in order to realize the
same benefits while maintaining acceptable
battery life. As PDAs equipped with Bluetooth
become more and more widely used as core
business tools, particularly by mobile
professionals, Bluetooth access points will
enable these users to be as productive as their
Wi-Fi equipped counterparts.
COMPARING THE CAPABILITIES
OF BLUETOOTH AND WI-FI:
Let’s take a look at the actual capabilities of
these two technologies, as well as the
corresponding requirements of the applications
and real world considerations that affect the
performance of the systems.
POWER CONSUMPTION
Power consumption is a critical consideration as
it directly affects device battery life. This
consideration is obviously most crucial for
devices that spend most or all their operating
hours on battery power – devices such as PDAs
and mobile phones.
From its inception, Bluetooth was designed to be
a small-form factor, low-cost, low-power
technology. The Bluetooth specification
incorporates a number of power saving features
in order to keep power use to a minimum. These
features include a standby mode as well as four
connected modes – parked, hold, sniff and
active. An adaptive transmission power feature
further minimizes power use.
The Bluetooth specification also defines three
different transmit power classes. Class 3 devices
operate at up to 0 dBm (1 mW); Class 2 devices
operate at up to 4 dBm (2.5 mW); and Class 3
devices operate up to 20 dBm (100mW). Most
plug-in cards (e.g. PCMCIA, Compact Flash) are
Class 3 devices; this will be the most dominant
type of Bluetooth device.
In order to achieve Ethernet-level data rates, Wi-
Fi operates with higher radio power on fixed
channels of greater bandwidth. Wi-Fi offers a
power save mode in which STAs “sleep,” then
reawaken periodically to check for messages.
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi modules are available in
many different form factors including PC cards
(PCMCIA), Compact Flash (CF) cards, Secure
Digital (SD) cards, Springboard modules, PCI
cards and mini-PCI cards. Table 1 below
summarizes the power requirements of various
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi devices classes under
various operating modes.
As shown in the table above, current Bluetooth
devices have a minimum current that is
approximately one-tenth the amount of minimum
Wi-Fi current requirements, and a transmit
current as little as a tenth of Wi-Fi’s transmit
current, depending upon the output power of the
devices in question. The implication is that
Bluetooth will drain the battery less quickly than
will Wi-Fi, making Bluetooth a more attractive
option for users with smaller devices. In fact, a
typical PDA with a 500 mA-hr battery life could
support Bluetooth running in idle mode for more
than 250 hours, whereas Wi-Fi could only be
supported for 20 – 50 hours in sleep mode. If
both technologies were in full transmit or receive
mode, a PDA using Wi-Fi could expect little
more than an hour of operation while a PDA
using Bluetooth could operate for five to ten
hours.
That said being said, PDA users seeking high-
speed access to their corporate LAN via Wi-Fi
may be willing to sacrifice either battery life or
“pocketability” for this privilege. Vendors are
beginning to offer WLAN PC cards for PDAs;
many of these devices come with a “sled” that
includes extra batteries to support the Wi-Fi
card. Although this approach succeeds in
offering additional longevity to the PDA device,
it transforms the PDA into a much bulkier piece
of equipment.
DATA RATE, THROUGHPUT AND
RANGE
As Bluetooth and Wi-Fi were designed to serve
differing usage scenarios, it is no surprise that
the performance of the two systems differs as
well. Bluetooth trades off speed for lower power
consumption, whereas Wi-Fi attempts to match
the performance of wired LANs.
Bluetooth supports two types of links – packet
and connection-oriented (known as SCO). Packet
connection is used for data transmission and can
operate symmetrically or asymmetrically. The
maximum symmetric data transfer rate is 433.9
kbps in each direction; the maximum asymmetric
data rate is 723.2 kbps upstream (57.6 kbps
downstream). Dedicated connection-oriented
links are used for audio applications. Bluetooth
can support three 64 kbps voice channels
simultaneously. These data rates are sufficient to
accommodate the usage scenarios described in
earlier sections.
Wi-Fi supports four different data rates: 11
Mbps, 5.5 Mbps, 2 Mbps and 1 Mbps. A rate-
scaling algorithm is used to reduce the data rate
when errors are detected in transmission. The
result is that the data rate is reduced as a user
moves farther away from an AP.
Table 2 below shows the range for the Bluetooth
APs (Class I) and Wi-Fi APs for typical office
environments. These figures will vary widely in
practice, depending upon the exact configuration
of the office.
Contrary to popular belief, the range of
Bluetooth devices can be substantial, particularly
when a Class I device is used to connect to an
AP. Although the range for most Bluetooth
client-to-client communication is 10m, a low
power client can be 32m away, on average, from
a high power AP, as shown in Table 2. An AP
connected with a Class I client device can
communicate over an average distance of 66m,
with even further range achievable using a client
incorporating a more sensitive receiver. This
Bluetooth range is quite comparable to Wi-Fi
range due to the simple fact that both APs have
comparable RF output power. Of course, it is
only at the greatest distances from the APs where
the throughputs of the two technologies are close
to being comparable.
Range comparisons can be useful for contrasting
the capabilities of these technologies. In practice,
however, clients in a typical office are within
20m of an AP in order to avoid having too many
users sharing bandwidth of each AP. As a result,
the range limits of these technologies are rarely
tested.
In order to get a complete picture of the
performance of these technologies, one must
consider throughput, as distinguished from raw
data rate. Based on numerous reports in the press
and by independent evaluators, peak throughput
for Wi-Fi systems is in the range of 5 – 7 Mbps,
with throughput falling off significantly as
distance from the AP increases. Typical observed
performance is an average 5 Mbps at a distance
of six meters (20 feet) from the AP and 1 Mbps
at a distance of 18 meters (60 feet) with several
walls in between the STA and AP.
The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG)
quotes data rate figures described above, e.g.
723.2 kbps, as the actual throughput values,
having taken into account all of the overhead
associated with transmitting packets over the air.
Thus, Bluetooth communication can take place at
this speed, following agreement between the two
communicating devices on an appropriate data
transfer rate.
SECURITY
Any network, be it wired or wireless, is subject
to security threats. These threats include the
physical security of the network, unauthorized
access, eavesdropping and attacks from within
the network’s authorized user community.
Wireless networks are more susceptible to
threats due to the fact that signals from the
network are more accessible to potential hackers.
Nevertheless, developers have tried to make both
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi highly resistant to security
threats based on the security procedures
implemented in the protocols as well as
commonly used adjunct security procedures. Yet
there are many loopholes in both the
technologies. Develepors are trying to address
these security problems and it will be
implemented in the future versions.
Some of the basic security concepts addressed by
the technologies include: 1) authentication – the
process of verifying who is at the other end of a
link between devices; 2) authorization – the
process of determining what a device or user is
allowed to do; and 3) encryption – the process of
disguising information to make it inaccessible to
unwanted listeners.
WI-FI SECURITY MECHANISMS
The Extended Service Set ID (ESSID) is the first
level of Wi-Fi security. The ESSID acts as a
basic password that is entered into all APs and
STAs that share the network. In order for the
ESSID to serve as an effective barrier, the
default ESSID value should be changed upon
deployment and broadcast of the ESSID by the
access point should be disabled, if possible. The
broadcast feature makes it easy for clients to find
the network but simultaneously makes it easier
for non-authorized users to find it.
The Access List provides the second layer of
network security. The access list defines all
MAC addresses associated with the STAs
allowed to associate with an AP. As a security
feature, the Access List is important but has a
degree of vulnerability due to the fact that MAC
addresses are sent over the air unencrypted. A
potential intruder can thus potentially discover a
known good MAC address and use the address to
gain network access by configuring a NIC with
that address.
A third layer, authentication, can be
implemented in two ways: open system
authentication and shared key authentication.
Both are hardware-based rather than user-based.
Open system authentication equates to “no
authentication” and is used in networks where
security is not a concern or, at least, not a
priority. An STA can associate with any AP and
listen to any data sent in plain text. Shared key
authentication uses a challenge and response
scheme to establish the presence of a shared key.
The shared key is based on the Wired-Equivalent
Privacy (WEP) protocol described below.
The WEP protocol is used for the final layer of
security – encryption – as well as for
authentication. WEP uses either a 40-bit (less
secure) or 128-bit (more secure) shared
encryption key to encrypt and decrypt data,
meaning that both the AP and the STA need to
be programmed with the shared key. The same
WEP key is used on all clients and access points
for communication. In order to make the most of
this security feature, it is desirable to frequently
change WEP keys, a process that needs to be
done on each AP and STA. Changing the WEP
key frequently is particularly important in light
of the recent arrival of software (e.g. AirSnort
and WEPCrack) that can be used to crack the
128-bit WEP key in a network, without detection
Some vendors have successfully minimized the
likelihood of such an attack by incorporating
such features as proprietary dynamic session
keys that are unique to each user and last only as
long as the connection lasts.
Additional security protocols can be
implemented in order to buttress the security of a
WLAN. Such protocols include Remote
Authentication Dial-in User Service (RADIUS),
TACACS, Virtual Private Network (VPN) and
firewalls. Both RADIUS and TACACS provide
an additional level of authentication and
authorization, as well as a centrally managed
means for carrying out these processes.
A VPN ensures security through both user
authentication and encryption and can be used in
conjunction with firewalls between the outside
world and the LAN and between the LAN and
the Wi-Fi network. The firewalls can be
configured to pass only VPN traffic. A VPN has
the additional ability to prevent “sniffing,” thus
ensuring that the WEP vulnerabilities described
above cannot be exploited.
Recognizing the possible vulnerability of the
802.11b standard, the IEEE is drafting a new
standard, 802.1x, which will address the current
shortcomings, maximize security and centralize
management functions. The proposed standard
includes the integration of RADIUS technology
to assign wireless clients dynamic WEP keys on
a per session basis. In fact, some vendors have
already integrated dynamic session keys into
their platforms, thus making for a substantially
improved level of security.
BLUETOOTH SECURITY MECHANISMS
Due to the broad range of applications that are
envisioned for Bluetooth devices, the protocol
was designed to have security options flexible
enough to allow for minimal demands on the
user when security is not a priority but a high
level of security when circumstances demand it.
Bluetooth uses multiple levels of user
authentication and data encryption as well as a
data transmission protocol that provides an
inherent degree of security. The frequency-
hopping scheme that Bluetooth employs makes
eavesdropping much more challenging, by
ensuring that only receivers synchronized with
the transmitter can access information.
Four different entities are used for maintaining
security at the Bluetooth link layer. Table 3
below summarizes these entities:
Bluetooth devices have the option of employing
three different degrees of security, depending
upon the requirements of the usage scenario.
• Mode 1 is non-secure and is used when
devices have no critical applications. A
device in mode 1 does not initiate any
security procedure such as
authentication or encryption.
• Mode 2 provides security after an initial
connection has been established
between devices. This mode allows
flexible access policies for
applications/services and is used
especially for running in parallel
applications that have differing security
requirements.
• Mode 3 enforces authentication and
encryption before any connection has
been established between devices.
Bluetooth is unique in that it can define security
levels for both devices and services. From the
standpoint of one Bluetooth device, other
devices can be categorized as either trusted or
untrusted. A trusted device would have access to
all services offered by the first device. Trusted
devices can continue to be trusted upon
subsequent interactions without additional effort.
An untrusted device has no fixed relationship
and its access to services is limited.
Services are the distinct activities such as voice
transmission, file transfer and dial-up networking
associated with different types of Bluetooth
devices. Three levels of security are defined for
services. The first level is open to all devices;
neither authentication nor access approval are
required. The second level requires
authentication only and authorization is not
necessary. The last level requires authorization
and authentication in order to access a service;
automatic access is only granted to trusted
devices. In this mode, encryption may be
required before access to the service is possible.
When operating in its most protected modes, the
first level of Bluetooth security entails
determining the trust level of another device.
Unknown or untrusted devices can automatically
be denied access to certain services available
over the Bluetooth link. The next layer of
security involves entering the same PIN number
into two devices that wish to connect. The PIN is
used, in conjunction with a random number, to
generate a 128-bit link key that is used for
authentication. In order to best ensure security,
users should be sure to use a PIN with as many
digits as possible and that is as difficult to guess
as possible.
The next level of security is a challenge and
response scheme that is used to determine
whether both devices share the same 128-bit
secret link key. If this hurdle is successfully
passed, then the devices determine a mutually
acceptable encryption key, which may be
anywhere from 8 to 128 bits, depending upon the
requirements of a particular service and the
county in which the devices operate. If an
appropriate level of encryption cannot be agreed
upon between devices, then the link will not be
completed. Once an encryption key is
established, it lasts only as long as the session
and then is regenerated for the next session.
In order to guarantee maximum security,
Bluetooth users need to be cautious about
devices – and owners – with whom they
communicate. Because each device in a
Bluetooth link uses the same authentication key
and that authentication key can be semi-
permanent, a hostile user can use this shared key,
along with the knowledge of the other device’s
address and PIN number, to either mimic that
other device or simply listen in on transmissions
made by the other device. This security breach is
difficult to carry out, though it is possible. It also
likely requires the violator to be someone within
your personal or professional sphere.
As with Wi-Fi, additional security measures can
be applied – and, in fact, are envisioned -- at the
Bluetooth application layer. For LAN access, as
an example, the same RADIUS or TACACS+
authentication that can be used in conjunction
with Wi-Fi also can be used with Bluetooth
(note: the Pico Communications AP supports
both RADIUS and TACACS+). So too can VPN
be implemented and used in conjunction with
Bluetooth access to the LAN.
For other types of secure interactions, other
application-level authentication and
authorization procedures can be put in place.
Mobile commerce transactions, for example, can
be protected with Secure Socket Link (SSL) just
as are Internet commerce transactions. Any
number of application-level security measures
can and will be implemented as Bluetooth device
deployment becomes more widespread.
Finally, Bluetooth is an evolving standard.
Future iterations of the Bluetooth specification
are expected to accommodate both higher speeds
and more robust security measures.
SECURITY SUMMARY
When considering the relative efficacy of
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi security procedures, it is
helpful to remember the circumstances in which
each are used. Bluetooth is used across a wide
variety of scenarios ranging from the simple
exchange of business cards and address
synchronization to LAN access. Wi-Fi, by
definition, is used for LAN access only. As a
result, a significant portion of Bluetooth traffic
will have lower requirements for secure
transmission, whereas Wi-Fi and the Bluetooth
LAN access mode, for example, will require a
greater degree of security protection.
Table 4 below summarizes the relevant security
attributes for Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. The table
describes most all of the security aspects
available though not all may be implemented at
any given time nor may all be implemented
between any given pair of devices.
Both Wi-Fi and Bluetooth offer a series of robust
security methods and protocols. When security
procedures are fully implemented, the effort
required to violate the security of these networks
is substantial, but within the capabilities of a
determined hacker. In a corporate LAN
environment, Wi-Fi is more susceptible to
security breaches than is Bluetooth due to the
vulnerability of the WEP protocol. In order to be
certain of protecting sensitive information,
additional security measures should be used in
conjunction with those outlined by the 802.11b
and Bluetooth standards; some vendors,
including Pico, already offer additional
implementations or the ability to work in
conjunction with other security protocols.
The most likely circumstances under which
security will be breached are those in which the
most basic security precautions have not been
exercised. For Wi-Fi, this might mean the
operation of a WLAN in “open system” mode.
For Bluetooth, this might mean the use of an
easily guessed password, such as “0000,” the
default on many systems.
The vast majority of Bluetooth applications, e.g.
synchronization, peer-to-peer file transfer,
headset, Internet access, have only moderate
security requirements. Bluetooth offers the
flexibility to keep user involvement to a
minimum unless extra security precautions are
deemed necessary. This flexible security
approach enables the user to strike a balance
between the level of protection required and ease
of use.

EASE OF USE
Numerous considerations come to mind when
considering how easy it is to make use of
wireless technologies. These include how easy it
is to set up a connection, how easy it is to engage
applications and how comfortable is the device
to use.
CONNECTING
When a user wishes to connect to a LAN, Wi-Fi
offers a simpler procedure, as it has been
optimized for this function. Assuming a WLAN
card is already in place, the user need merely
turn on her computing device and enter the
necessary authenticating user name and
password. The user is then on the network.
For Bluetooth, the process is lengthier, possibly
requiring each of the following steps: 1) device
discovery; 2) device connection; 3) the
establishment of a LAN access connection; 4)
the establishment of a PPP connection; 5) PIN
entry; 6) network user name and password entry.
Though most of these steps can be accomplished
with a single click of the mouse or tap of the
stylus, the entire process could take as long as 30
seconds. The fact that Bluetooth enables
communication between disparate device types
using many different types of applications
means, inevitably, that some procedures will take
longer with Bluetooth than with application-
specific technologies such as Wi-Fi. In order to
streamline this process, Pico has developed a
proprietary application -- PicoConnect™ -- that
allows onetouch network access.
For an ad hoc peer-to-peer communication
scenario, the picture is somewhat different. In
Wi-Fi, a network administrator may become
involved to make the appropriate settings to the
STAs as well as to choose an appropriate
channel in which to operate the peer-to-peer
network. If three channels (the maximum
allowable) are already in use, the peer-to-peer
network may not be able to be established.
Finally, peer-to-peer networking works only for
computers that are part of the same home
network. The bottom line is that the
establishment of a Wi-Fi peer-to-peer network
requires some planning and preparation and
works only for users within the same company
whereas Bluetooth peer-to-peer interaction can
truly be done on an ad hoc basis.
Of course, there are many scenarios in Bluetooth
that have no equivalent in Wi-Fi. One that comes
to mind is the use of a Bluetooth-enabled mobile
phone as an Internet access point, as described
earlier in this paper. This connection between a
notebook or PDA and mobile phone can be
accomplished quickly if the devices are already
known to each other and trusted. A user can
connect by simply discovering the phone and
establishing a point-to-point connection.
PORTABILITY
As mentioned earlier, Bluetooth draws far less
power than Wi-Fi. As a result, devices that use
Bluetooth to communicate with an AP can do so
in their native configurations while maintaining
substantial battery life. Devices that use Wi-Fi to
connect to a network must either contend with
substantially reduced battery life or add battery
power – and, hence, size and weight -- to support
Wi-Fi. Additionally, Bluetooth is being built
directly into PDA devices, thus further
minimizing their weight and footprint. Due to its
power consumption, built-in Wi-Fi in PDAs is
not anticipated, thus necessitating the addition of
a PC card, at the very least. For devices already
equipped with Bluetooth, the continued use of
the Bluetooth capability for LAN and Internet
access appears to make more sense for the user
than changing back and forth between the two.
COEXISTENCE OF BLUETOOTH
AND WI-FI
The explosion in Wi-Fi WLAN installations and
the anticipated growth in the use of Bluetooth-
enabled devices ensure that the two technologies
will find themselves sharing space more and
more often. The question naturally arises as to
how these two technologies that both operate in
the same 2.4 GHz spectrum will get along.
BLUETOOTH AND WI-FI TECHNICAL
OVERVIEW
Bluetooth supports both voice links and data
links within an eight-node piconet. Bluetooth
radios transmit intermittently over a bandwidth
of 1 MHz and they hop from one 1 MHz channel
to another at a rate of 1600 hops per second. This
technique is known as frequency hopping spread
spectrum (FHSS). As discussed previously, most
Bluetooth devices transmit at a power level of up
to1 mW (0 dBm).
Wi-Fi technology uses a technique known as Fi and Bluetooth. This might be a notebook
direct-sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) to computer that uses Wi-Fi to connect to the LAN
transmit data at up to 11 Mbps across a 22 MHz and Bluetooth to connect to other devices such as
channel. Up to three channels can be deployed printers or a PDA. In this case, the Wi-Fi and
simultaneously in the 79 MHz ISM band. The Bluetooth radios will be in close proximity. The
technology employs a technique to avoid second scenario is one in which Wi-Fi and
collisions that requires an acknowledgment from Bluetooth are not collocated in the same device
the receiving device (Carrier Sense Multiple but used in separate devices that are some
Access with Collision Avoidance); a Wi-Fi distance apart from each other. This is a more
device will retransmit a packet if the common scenario today and might include a user
acknowledgment is not received. Typical RF with a laptop computer connected to the network
power for Wi-Fi devices is between 30 mW and via Wi-Fi sharing space with another employee
100 mW. using a PDA to connect to the network via a
Bluetooth AP.
HOW AND WHY BLUETOOTH AND
WI-FI INTERFERE When considering the degree of interference
between Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices, it’s also
Interference between Bluetooth and Wi-Fi will
important to define the period over which the
occur any time there is an overlap of both time
interference may occur. To wit, when both
and frequency between transmissions associated
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi are simultaneously
with each technology. Interference between
transmitting or receiving in close proximity to
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi occurs when: a) a Wi-Fi
each other, one would expect to see the worst-
receiver senses a Bluetooth signal at the same
case interference.
time a Wi-Fi signal is being sent to it; and/or b) a
Bluetooth receiver senses a Wi-Fi signal at the
However, when evaluating the actual effect on a
same time a Bluetooth signal is being sent to it.
user, one must consider an entire day and the
type and frequency of traffic that is likely to
Bluetooth is considered less susceptible to
occur over the course of that day. This type of
interference because of its frequency hopping
analysis captures the fact that although there may
capability. It has the ability to “hop away” from
be moments of high interference, those moments
interfering signals and does so pseudo-randomly.
are few and far between and that the overall user
Wi-Fi is considered more susceptible to
experience is a positive one.
interference because it inhabits a specific 22
At the end of the day, the question is not
MHz passband and cannot “hop away” from
necessarily “do the technologies interfere with
interference as Bluetooth can. Its collision
each other?” but rather, “do the coexist well
avoidance mechanism also results in
together?” The former is an academic question;
retransmission following Bluetooth interference
the latter is a practical one focused on the
events, leading to successful transmission but
enduser’s experience.
reduced throughput.
INTERFERENCE TESTING RESULTS
INTERFERENCE SCENARIOS
As Bluetooth is seeing commercial deployment
There are a nearly infinite number of scenarios in
only just now, there exist few real-world tests
which one might find Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
measuring the interference effects between Wi-Fi
devices coexisting and countless variables that
and Bluetooth. The results in this section draw
will affect the degree to which interference
on published results of modeling the interaction
occurs between the two. Variables include the
between the two technologies, one real world test
number of devices in question; the distance
as well as on some of our own preliminary
between affected devices; RF output power of
testing.
the equipment; the type of transmission, e.g.
voice or data; the nature of the packets being
The Mobilian Corporation has created a
sent; and the density of the transmissions, i.e.
sophisticated computer model that simulates the
load factor.
interaction between Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
devices; the model appears to correspond well to
To simplify matters, two fundamental physical
actual performance . The company’s focus is on
scenarios can be considered. The first is one in
the first scenario identified above – collocated
which a single device is equipped with both Wi-
Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Using the simulation
model, the company categorizes Wi-Fi
performance degradation scenarios for collocated
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi devices in the following
decreasing order of severity:
• The most severe interference occurs
when a Wi-Fi device, such as a PC card,
is collocated with a Bluetooth device,
such as an embedded mini-PCI card.
This scenario would be likely to occur
in a notebook computer with both Wi-Fi
and Bluetooth enabled and would
correspond to a separation between
devices of 10 cm or less.
• Slightly less severe effects are observed
when a transmitting Bluetooth device,
such as a PDA, is part of the same
piconet as a Bluetooth device that is co-
located with a Wi-Fi device, as above,
and is at a typical range of 1 to 1½
meters from the collocated devices.
• The least severe effect is observed when
a Bluetooth interferer is outside of the
collocated Bluetooth device’s piconet
and is located at least 2 meters away.
The message from this analysis is that collocated
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi devices are both likely to
experience significant interference, with Wi-Fi
being most affected. Thus, this collocation
scenario requires the development of techniques
to minimize or eliminate interference between
the protocols. The scenario described in the last
bullet equates most closely to interference
between separate Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices, a
situation more likely to occur in practice until
new technology is available to allow Wi-Fi and
Bluetooth collocation in the same device.
Mobilian also draws some conclusions, based on
its model, about the non-collocated device
scenario. Their analysis concludes that Bluetooth
and Wi-Fi devices separated by a meter or more
will yield graceful degradation of the protocols
that is unlikely to be noticed by most users. Our
own preliminary testing supports this conclusion.
In tests at Pico Communications, two notebook
computers were placed in close proximity – one
equipped with a Bluetooth PC card (both Class I
and Class III) and the other equipped with a Wi-
Fi PC card (100 mW). A Wi-Fi AP (100 mW)
and a Bluetooth AP (100 mW) were placed at
either end of a hallway, each approximately 7m
from the computers and each with an
unobstructed line-of-sight view to both
computers. To simulate worst-case interference,
files were downloaded from the network
simultaneously onto both computers. File
download was selected as this represents the
asymmetric traffic common to most networks.
Wi-Fi throughput was measured first without
Bluetooth running and then at distances of 1m,
2m and 3m between computers. The results are
shown in Table 5.
Based on their experiment, Wi-Fi throughput
reduction in the presence of continuous
Bluetooth activity may or may not be significant
at 1m and above, depending on the output power
of the client device. For Class III clients – the
most common – the reduced throughput even at
1m is unlikely be noticeable (24% reduction).
When the interferer is a Class I client, throughput
reduction at 1m is significant (87% reduction)
but quickly approaches full rate as the distance
between devices is increased beyond 1m (note
the lower baseline rate in this test). The reduced
throughput associated with both Class I and
Class III clients at 2m and 3m is measurable but
also unlikely to be noticeable to an end-user.
In a less scientific experiment, they observed no
noticeable degradation in a streaming video
signal on either Wi-Fi or Bluetooth equipped
notebooks when both were in simultaneous
operation. Exhibit 1 below is a photograph of
this experiment.
None of the tests or models mentioned so far
take into account the actual probability of
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi being in simultaneous
operation and, as such, represent worst-case or
near worst-case scenarios. To measure the effect
on an actual user during the course of a given
day, one must take into account a likely mix and
duration of traffic in a typical office
environment. This type of analysis was carried
out in. An office environment was modeled with
typical usage assumptions and a piconet
collocated with each Wi-Fi STA. The
conclusions regarding the effect of Bluetooth
transmission on Wi-Fi performance were as
follows:
• Wi-Fi performance degrades gracefully
in the presence of interference from
Bluetooth systems;
• Assuming a baseline throughput of 7
Mbps (note: 5 Mbps is typically
observed in practice), throughput will
be 5 Mbps or greater 95.6% of the time
and 3 Mbps or greater 99.5% of the
time when the distance between the
STA and AP is 20m;
• Maximum throughput can be
maintained 95.6% and 97.8% of the
time at 10m of separation and 4m of
separation, respectively, between the
STA and the AP.
Of course, the actual numbers will vary in
practice but the message is clear: in a typical
office environment, episodes of measurable
interference are likely to be the exception rather
than the norm. Another point highlighted by the
results is – not surprisingly -- that the distance
between devices and APs has an effect on the
interference. This is because interference is a
function of signal-to-noise ratio.
One last issue of interference to address is the
effect of Wi-Fi systems on Bluetooth system
performance. As noted above, our own lab tests
showed good performance for Bluetooth in the
presence of Wi-Fi interference. One study seeks
to model Bluetooth throughput reduction in the
presence of Wi-Fi interference. Using
assumptions similar to those in, the following
results were observed:
• Under defined normal traffic conditions
on the WLAN, Bluetooth voice is
unaffected as long as the distance
between the two Bluetooth devices is
less than 2m. If that distance increases
to 10m, the probability of noticeable
interference rises to 8%;
• Under defined normal traffic conditions
on the WLAN, the Bluetooth data
channel has, at a 2m separation between
devices, a 3.2% probability of having a
throughput reduction of 10% or more.
When separation is increased to 10m,
the probability of a 10% or greater
throughput reduction increases to 24%.
• The upper limit on Bluetooth
throughput reduction is 22%,
corresponding to the overlap of the
802.11b channel with the entire ISM
band (79 MHz) over which Bluetooth
operates.
Note that the Bluetooth voice channel will
experience more degradation than the Bluetooth
data channel. The data channel applies
retransmission in the event of a failed packet and
is thus able to cope with interference. The voice
channel, on the other hand, is a connection-
oriented link with no retransmission capabilities.
It is thus more susceptible to degradation.
Finally, one researcher has measured the
throughput performance of both Bluetooth and
Wi-Fi as mutual interferers. The experiments
show that Bluetooth throughput is impacted
when a Wi-Fi device is operating very close to it
but that throughput is approximately 90% of
baseline independent of range once the Wi-Fi
device is moved away. The study concludes that
both Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices obtain a large
majority of the throughput that would be
available to them without interference as long as
they are moved a reasonable distance from each
other.
OPTIONS FOR REDUCING
INTERFERENCE
Based on the analyses cited above, we believe
that Wi-Fi and Bluetooth interference is not a
significant concern within an office environment.
Nevertheless, network designers or IT managers
seeking to minimize any potential interference
between Wi-Fi and Bluetooth systems can follow
a few simple guidelines to help ensure optimal
coexistence between the two technologies.
• Ensure adequate spacing between Wi-Fi
APs and Bluetooth APs to minimize the
probability of interference between the
two types of devices most likely to be
transmitting;
• Do not deploy any devices that are
simultaneously equipped with both
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi;
• Increase the number of Wi-Fi APs
deployed in order to yield a shorter
 average distance between wireless LAN bedroom door. It's six o'clock, time to rise and
STAs and APs. shine.
Sliding your feet to the floor, you reach
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS AND out your arm, grab a credit card-sized remote
TRENDS control unit, and press a button; the buzzing of
the alarm goes silent. You press another button
Aware of the potential for interference between
on the remote and soft music fills the room,
the technologies, the IEEE has formed the
emanating from the compact stereo system
Coexistence Task Group 2 in order to develop
sitting on your dresser, on the other side of the
recommendations for coexistence between
room. With another push of a button the lights
WLANs and WPANs. (Note: the IEEE has
start to rise, and you hear the sounds of your
adopted Bluetooth as the 802.15.1 WPAN
shower turning on. When you know the water is
standard). The goal of the taskforce is to reduce
warm enough, you step under the showerhead for
the probability of the two technologies
the kind of pulsing hot shower that really gets
transmitting at the same time; it is pursuing two
you going.
approaches to achieving this objective. The first
After your shower you dry off, pull on
approach is known as non-collaborative, in
your robe, and shuffle to the kitchen. There, a
which no exchange of information is used
fresh pot of coffee is brewing at just the right
between the two wireless networks. The second
temperature, and two slices of toast pop up from
approach is known as collaborative, in which the
the gleaming chrome toaster as you walk by the
WLAN and the WPAN exchange information in
counter, as if on command. You reach inside the
order to minimize mutual interference.
refrigerator for some orange marmalade, and a
slightly accented female voice speaks to you
Aside from the progress being made by the
from the front of the refrigerator door, reminding
IEEE, companies such as Mobilian (cited above)
you to stop and pick up groceries on the way
are developing their own proprietary solutions
home from work.
for minimizing interference between the two
As you sit down at the kitchen table to
technologies. Their focus is on enabling the
eat your toast and marmalade, you pick up a thin
simultaneous deployment of Wi-Fi and
pad about the size of the Etch-A-Sketch toy you
Bluetooth on the same chip.
had as a kid. This pad isn't a toy, however; you
press a button on the side of the pad and the front
In addition to ongoing work to enhance
page of today's newspaper appears on the pad's
coexistence in the 2.4 GHz band, another
super-sharp electronic screen. You flip through
Wireless LAN technology – 802.11h and x – that
the pages with the press of a button, finishing the
addresses the security loopholes, is expected to
newspaper-and your breakfast-in a matter of
reach the market by the end of 2004. The
minutes.
802.11a technology operates in the 5 GHz band
You put your dirty dishes in the
and uses an entirely different coding technique
dishwasher and return to your bedroom to get
than does Wi-Fi to achieve maximum data
dressed for work. On your way out the door, you
throughput of 54 Mbps or more. The mere fact
pick up your palm-sized personal digital
that 802.11a operates in the 5 GHz band means
assistant, which is lying on the kitchen counter.
that it will be subject to far less interference than
A quick check of the PDA's screen confirms that
its 802.11b cousin; should 802.11a become the
your spouse has assembled a shopping list for
wireless LAN of choice, the question of
your visit to the grocery store, and downloaded
coexistence between Wi-Fi and Bluetooth in the
the list to your PDA. You smile to yourself at
2.4 GHz band will certainly become less of a
your spouse's efficiency, and then you walk
concern. The 802.11g operates at 100Mbps.
through the kitchen and out into the garage,
ready for your morning commute.
MAKING ROOM FOR THEM:
MAKING ROOM FOR WI-FI:-
MAKING ROOM FOR BLUETOOTH:-
Hotels have been amongst the first to
The buzzing of your alarm clock embrace Wi-Fi. These include Taj, Oberoi, ITC,
interrupts you from a shallow sleep. You turn Leela, Sarovar park Plaza Hotels, Le Royal
over, wipe the sleep from your eyes, and glance meridian, Hyatt, and others who are offering
across the room at the large digital numbers that wireless connectivity, some across all their
are seemingly floating in air beside your
branch hotels in India. Hotel marine plaza in
Mumbai was the latest hotel to become a
hotspot, but connectivity is available only in the
lobby area and the coffee shop Geoffrey’s. Most
hotels offer guest a PCMCIA card to plug in to
their laptop and charge anything from Rs.100 per
hour to Rs.1000 for a 24-hour period. And guests
can move from room to room without getting
disconnected.
A WIRELESS CLASS APART:-
Students can now roam around the
campus and get access to the internet, finish
assignments, do research and communicate with
classmates, faculty and family.
Some educational institutes offering
Wi-Fi are Pathways World School, Guraon while
most IITs and IIMs, Anna University, Annamalai
University, and International School of Business
(ISB) in Hyderabad, Mount Zion College of
Engineering and Technology have also become
hotspots.
MONEY MATTERS:-
Banking is also opting for Wi-Fi in a
bigway. Some of the ‘hotspot’ bank includes
HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Indian Overseas
Bank, Punjab National Bank etc.
PUBLIC SERVICE HOTSPOTS:-
The villages go hi-tech .More than 200
villages in western Maharashtra have been Wi-
Fied, so that villagers can get agricultural access
systems right at their doorsteps.
In Madhya Pradesh too, a rural district
opted for Wi-Fi to help local women access
information right from their homes instead of
truing miles. An 85-km long Wi-Fi digital bridge
has also come up between Kanpur and Lucknow,
created by a research team of media lab Asia,
this project is working on outdoor wireless
connectivity for longer distances.
SUMMARY:
BLUETOOTH TECHNOLOGY:-
o Bluetooth is designed to be a personal
area network, where participating
entities are mobile and require sporadic
communication with others.
o It’s omni directional.
o Bluetooth operates in the 2.4 GHz area
of the spectrum, and provides a Range
of 10 meters.
o It offers transfer speeds of around 720
Kbps.
o Bluetooth devices are connected to each
other; they form a network called
Piconet. Each piconet can have a
master, and up to seven slaves.
o To accommodate interference from
other signals, Bluetooth uses frequency
hopping.
o To conserve power, devices can go into
three modes when they aren’t actively
involved in a piconet.
o In increasing order of power
consumption, they can be in park mode,
hold mode and sniff mode.
o All the slave devices in a piconet are
assigned an active member address
(AM_ADDR).when a slave enters the
park mode; it will give up its
AM_ADDR and get a park address,
PM_ADDR.
o One of Bluetooth’s advantages is that it
can handle both data (asynchronous)
and voice (synchronous), which others
such as infra-red can’t.
o Every Bluetooth devices has a 48-bit
BDAddr (Bluetooth device address)
burned into its ROM. This address can’t
be easily changed by the user.
o A Bluetooth device can be set to
periodically scan for other devices in its
vicinity or users can perform manual
scans.
WI-FI TECHNOLOGY:-
o Bluetooth is a convenient way of
communication for a personal network,
but it is not suitable as an LAN
replacement, or for perennial data
transfer.
o Wi-Fi and abbreviation for wireless
fidelity, is a wireless standard that
promises mobility while offering data
rates comparable to those of a wired
LAN.
o Wi-Fi is a collection of standards
ratified by the IEEE. In 1997; IEEE
approved the 802.11 standard, which
laid down the specification for wireless
LAN.
o Revisions were made to this standard
and these resulted in three other
 standards, namely 802.11a, 802.11b and
802.11g.The entire family of 802.11
standards is collectively called Wi-Fi.
The name Wi-Fi was first given to the
802.11b standard. Approved in 1999,
802.11b Offered extensions to the
original 802.11 that improved the
highest data rate from 2 Mbps to 11
Mbps. It operates in the 2.4 GHz
frequency range, like as the original and
has a range of about 300 feet. The latest
is 802.11g that has the highest data rate
of 100Mbps.
o 802.11a is a standard that operates at a
frequency of 5 GHz, and hence it is
incompatible with 802.11b.
o The range of 802.11a is lower than that
802.11b; hence, more access points are
needed to cover a large area.
o 802.11a is less susceptible to
interference when compared to other
standards such as 802.11b.
o To solve the limitation of ‘b’ and at the
same time provide the speed of ‘a’, the
802.11g was introduced.
o 802.11g offers speeds of 100 Mbps,
while maintaining compatibility with
802.11b networks, while maintaining
compatibility with 802.11b networks, so
a laptop with an 802.11g card will be
able to use an 802.11b access point.
o Wi-Fi has a basic level of security
provided at the physical level, called
WEP.
o All Wi-fi products come with a 40-bit
encryption key. A 104-bit encryption
key is also available, and it is
recommended that the largest available
key should be used.
HOW BLUETOOTH WORKS:-
SYSTEM SUPPORT:-
The easiest way to enable Bluetooth
support in a system is to attach Bluetooth USB
sticks. Some motherboards, such as MSI KT3
Ultra2-BR, come with inbuilt Bluetooth support.
Once plugged into the system, you’ll have to
install the drivers for the device to start using it.
The system will then periodically scan the
surroundings for Bluetooth devices.
PROS:-
Currently Bluetooth offers the best
solution for hassle-free communication between
portable devices. With low power consumption
and user friendliness, Bluetooth has all the
requirements of a personal area network. Those
who need to transfer data on a regular basis and
prefer portable device should definably opt for
Bluetooth.
CONS:-
In spite of promises that Bluetooth
support will be cheap, consumers avoid this due
to the cost. A Bluetooth USB sticks costs about
Rs 2,000, which may be on the higher side of
main stream customers. The cost is expected to
come down to Rs 250. Don’t think this
technology as a LAN replacement, though.
DEVICE USING BLUETOOTH:-
Bluetooth is slowly beginning to reach
the hands of consumers. Most premium-range
mobiles and PDAs support Bluetooth; it has
started appering in the main stream range as
well. Users buying mobiles phones, or PDAs
should look for Bluetooth enable devices .Using
Bluetooth, you can transfer contacts, ring tones,
images etc., between devices easily.
HOW WI-FI WORKS:
SYSTEM SUPPORT:
For a system to connect to a Wi-Fi
network, it should have a Wi-Fi card, or an
access point connected to it. Wi-Fi network cards
are like normal network cards that plug into PCI
slots, but have a protruding antenna. It’s also
possible to plug an external Wi-Fi adapter into a
USB port. Once network card are installed and
configured, the system can connect to any Wi-Fi
network.
PROS:
Given the current situation, Wi-Fi
should be adopted when there is a demand for
High speed on the move. Wi-Fi is suited for
corporate with several executives roaming
around the office with their laptops. Home
looking for a means to share a broad band
internet connection can also consider adopting
Wi-Fi.
CONS:
A wireless setup is rather expensive
when compared to a regular LAN. Also since
Wi-Fi drains batteries much quicker, PDA users
should avoid using it-especially if they have a
Bluetooth option available. It is difficult to
provide Wi-Fi network, as it is difficult to
control access to the network.
DEVICE USING WI-FI:
While Wi-Fi may be widely used for
communication between computers, there are
PDAs that support it. It’s also possible to add
Wi-Fi support to a PDA by inserting a Wi-Fi
card in to the SD (secure Digital) slot. PDA such
as the Toshiba e750 have inbuilt support for Wi-
Fi. Nokia announced plans to build mobile
phones that can seamlessly switch between
802.11b and public networks. The major
problem with Wi-Fi is the high power
consumption, which mobile devices just can’t
afford.
CONCLUSIONS:
Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are complementary – not
competing – technologies. Wi-Fi is intended to
be a wireless replacement for Ethernet LANs.
It’s designed to enable portable devices such as
notebook computers to easily move about an
office or campus environment, while maintaining
connectivity to the corporate LAN. It can also be
used to rapidly set up a LAN among desktop
computers without pulling CAT-5 cable.
Bluetooth, on the other hand, is a generic access
technology meant for wirelessly connecting
devices of all types, shapes and sizes. It’s
intended to be ubiquitous, allowing the
formation of ad hoc networks between devices
wherever they may be located, with or without
the user’s intervention.
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi do share some functional
overlap. Like Wi-Fi, Bluetooth has the ability to
connect devices to a LAN or to the Internet using
a Bluetooth AP. However, the Bluetooth niche is
with small devices such as PDAs that have
limited battery life. Due to its power-miserly
nature, Bluetooth allows these devices to achieve
network access while simultaneously
maintaining long battery life. Of course, both
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi will be found on both
notebooks and PDAs and it will be up to users to
make the tradeoff between speed and battery life
when accessing a network.
Both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi have strong security
measures built-in that are sufficient for most
circumstances and applications. As is always the
case when protecting something of value, a
determined hacker will be able to break into
either system. The trick is to minimize the
likelihood of an attack by using the available
security measures – in other words, locking the
front door. If locking the front door is not
enough, both technologies can be used in
conjunction with additional security measures
that will further minimize their vulnerability. Of
course, many Bluetooth users may not be
especially concerned about security given the
relatively mundane nature of most Bluetooth
transmissions. For this reason, Bluetooth offers
multiple layers of security protection, allowing
users to invoke or to be subject to stronger
security measures only when required.
Wi-Fi and Bluetooth coexist well together under
most circumstances. Though they both occupy
the same frequency spectrum, and are thus
subject to interference with each other, the
degree of interference will not be noticeable to
most users over the course of a typical day, as
long as the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices are
separated by 1 meter or more. Both industry and
standards bodies are developing solutions to
minimize interference between the two
technologies with the goal of enabling
simultaneous operation of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
on the same device.
Wireless Ethernet connectivity is evolving. Since
the end of 2001, companies have been shipping
access points based on the 802.11a standard.
This newer standard operates at more than four
times the rate of 802.11b and it operates in a
different frequency band – 5 GHz. If 802.11g
becomes the WLAN technology of choice -- as it
appears ready to do -- the distinction between
WLAN and Bluetooth will be made even greater.
The 802.11g standard will become the high-
speed network access technology of choice,
while Bluetooth will cement its position as the
universal connectivity standard and as the
Internet access technology of choice for small
devices.
PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION
OF BLUETOOTH TECHNOLOGY:
The following hardware components were used:
Two laptops of the following specification were
taken:
LAPTOP 1: System Model: Dell Precision M50
Workstation, Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4- M
CPU-1.8Ghz 789 MHz, 512 MB – RAM, OS:
Microsoft Windows XP Professional Version
2002 Service Pack 1
LAPTOP 2: System Model: 1200XL - Compaq
Presario, Celeron - 633 MHz, 4.5 GB HDD, 128
MB – RAM, OS: Windows 98

Two Belkin’s Bluetooth USB Adapters were The Bluetooth piconet was set up as shown
attached to the above laptops: below in the diagram:
ADAPTER 1: BD_Addr: 0003C92D5225
ADAPTER2: BD_Addr: 0003C92D5226

BLUETOOTH NETWORK:
BLUETOOTH SETTINGS AND i) The “Notifications” tab lets you associate a
CONFIGURATION: sound (Windows *.wav file) with specific
Bluetooth events.
To customize the configuration settings of
Bluetooth software for Windows operating
system, follow the instructions described below:
1. Right click on the Bluetooth icon on the right-
hand side of the task bar of your screen. The
“Bluetooth Configuration” window appears to
allow you to customize the configuration settings
of “Explore”, “Setup”, or “Services”. In the
“Setup” menu, there are two extended items,
“Security” and “Configuration”.

2. Click on “Configuration”.
a) The “General” tab of “Configuration” allows
you to customize the device’s user name, type,
and security type.
b) The “Accessibility” tab allows you to specify
which individual devices are allowed to access
the user’s computer.
c) The “Discovery” tab allows you to specify
which individual devices, type of, or class of
device the user’s computer is allowed access to.
d) The “Information Exchange” tab allows you
to specify the location of different types of files.
e) The “Local Services” tab indicates the
services this computer makes available to the
other computers.
f) The “Client Applications” tab indicates the
properties of each application.
g) The “Hardware” tab indicates device
information of the user’s hardware.
h) The “Version Info” tab indicates the module
version of the user’s software component.
PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION Wi-Fi PDA through the access point. The LAN
OF WI-FI TECHNOLOGY: can also be accessed through it. We have also
created a peer-to-peer network to link up a Wi-Fi
In this report we show you how we enabled PDA and a laptop directly without the
created a Wi-Fi network using 2.4 GHz USB access point. The following section explains how
Wireless Adapter DWL-122 and DI- to configure the network.
614+2.4GHz Wireless Router 5V DC Power
Adapter. Thus we can access the laptop from a
DI-614+2.4GHZ WIRELESS
ROUTER 5V DC POWER
ADAPTER:-
2.4GHZ USB WIRELESS
ADAPTER DWL-122:
REFERENCES: 27. http://www.vlsi.ee.upatras.gr/~sklavos/
Papers03/IEEE03_Bluetooth.pdf
1. Living digital, Vol.8 issues,
28. http://www6.tomshardware.com/networ
11.November 2003, Pg.84-85
k/20020626/bluetooth-09.html
2. Living digital, Vol.9 issues, 01.January
29. An Overview of the Bluetooth Wireless
2004, Pg.62-64
Technology, Chatschik, IBM
3. CHIP magazine, January 2004,
Corporation.
Volume1, Issue 3, Page 129
30. AN1997, Philips FM/IF systems for
4. Digit, January 2004, Volume 4 issue 1,
GMSK/GFSK receivers, Yanpeng Guo,
Pg.102-105
1997 Aug 20, Philips.
5. “Wi-fi Home Networking”, Raymond
31. Bluetooth Encryption and Security,
Smith
Kjell Jorgen Hole, 13.5.2003,
6. Nathan.J.Muller, “Bluetooth
www.kjhole.com
Demystified” (2001), p.p. 1-36,44-
32. Bluetooth Overview, Kjell Jorgen Hole,
47,123-148, Tata McGraw Hill
13.5.2003, www.kjhole.com
Publishing Company.
33. Bluetooth Security SAFER+, Kjell
7. Manish Jain, “Bluetooth The Basics”
Jorgen Hole, 13.5.2003,
(2001), p.p 1-26, 104-105, 130-152,
www.kjhole.com
BPB Publications.
34. Bluetooth Platform Solution from
8. Anil Kumar, “The Bluetooth Protocol
Motorola, Motorola.
Stack”, p.p 33-36, Information
35. Bluetooth Security White Paper,
Technology Magazine, (Vol 11; No.3,
Bluetooth SIG Security Expert Group,
January 2002)
19.4.2002, Christian Gehrmann
9. Prasanto.K.Roy, “The Phone
36. Bluetooth Version 1.1, Specification of
Collector”, p.p 66, Computers @ Home
the Bluetooth system, Bluetooth,
Magazine, (Vol 7; Issue.1, January
www.bluetooth.com, February 22 2001.
2002)
37. Industrial Use of Bluetooth, 18.04.2001,
10. www.bluetooth.com
Mats Anderson, connectBlue.
11. Hasan Jawaid Khan, "Smart Homes of
38. How Secure Is Bluetooth, Karen. J.
the Future", pp.: 9-15, 50, The Science
Marcelo, March/April,
Reporter Magazine, (May 2002)
www.WBT2.com
12. www.HAL2000.com
39. Bluetooth Technology in a Nutshell,
13. www.homeseer.com
Mark Fu, KC Technology, 2001.
14. Michael Miller, Discovering Bluetooth,
40. Multimedia transmission in Bluetooth-
2001, SYBEX.
based networks, Marcin Michalak, June
15. Dean. A. Gratton, Bluetooth Profiles –
2001.
The Definitive Guide, 2003, Prentice
41. Mobile Computing Outlook, 2003,
Hall.
www.mobileinfo.com
16. Jim Geier, Wireless LAN, 2nd Edition-
42. Bluetooth Revealed
2002, SAMS.
43. Bluetooth-Connect without cables
17. http://www.codeproject.com
44. Stubblefield, A. et al., Using the
18. http://www.kjhole.com
Fluhrer, Mantin, and Shamir Attack to
19. http://learning.ericsson.net/bluetoothde
Break WEP, AT&T Labs Technical
mo
Report TD-4ZCPZZ
20. http://learning.ericsson.net/bluetoothde
45. Mobilian Corporation, Wi-Fi (802.11b)
mo/content/lesson1/blx11101.html
and Bluetooth: An Examination of
21. http://opensource.nus.edu.sg/projects/bl
Coexistence Approaches, 2001.
uetooth/noosphere/saferfigures.pdf
46. Mobilian Corporation, Wi-Fi (802.11b)
22. http://opensource.nus.edu.sg/projects/bl
and Bluetooth Simultaneous Operation:
uetooth/noosphere/safertweak.doc
Characterizing the Problem, November
23. http://www.palowireless.com/bluetooth/
2000.
24. http://www.rococo.com
47. Zyren, J., Reliability of IEEE 802.11 Hi
25. http://www.techonline.com/community/
Rate DSSS WLANs in a High Density
tech_topic/bluetooth
Bluetooth Environment, June 1999.
26. http://www.techonline.com/pdf/pavillio
48. Haartsen, J. et al., Bluetooth voice and
ns/standards/kct_bluetooth.pdf
data performance in 802.11 DS WLAN
 environment, SIG publication, May
1999.
49. Shoemake, M., Wi-Fi (802.11b) and
Bluetooth: Coexistence Issues and
Solutions for the 2.4 GHz ISM Band,
February 2001.
50. Nedeltchev, P., Wireless Local Area
Networks and the 802.11 Standard,
March 31, 2001.
51. Nedeltchev, P., Wireless LAN Ready for
Prime Time, Cisco Packet Magazine, 3rd
Quarter, 2001.
52. Schenk, R. et al., Wireless LAN
Deployment and Security Basics,
ExtremeTech.com, August 2001.
53. Ellison, C., Exploiting and Protecting
802.11b Wireless Networks,
ExtremeTech.com, September 2001.
54. Cisco Systems, Wireless LAN Security,
Overview White Paper, 1999-2001.
55. Bluetooth, Bluetooth Specification
Version 1.1, February 2001
56. Vainio, J., Bluetooth Security, 2000-05-
25
57. Träskbäck, M., Security of Bluetooth:
An Overview of Bluetooth Security,
2000-11-2
58. Jakobbson, M. et al., Security
Weaknesses in Bluetooth, February
2001
59. Müller, T., Bluetooth Security
Architecture Version 1.0, July 1999
60. InfoTooth Knowledge Base,
http://www.palowireless.com/infotooth/
knowbase.asp