标签: router

Wallys industrial wifi5 2×2 2.4G&5G router/ IPQ4019 IPQ4029 ,802.11AC MT7915/ QCA9880 APPLICATIONS Profi WiFi hotspot coverage Commercial radio coverage Hotel Wireless application Country coverage Internet for passengers (bus, train, plane, …) Security Surveillance Some special scene application Heavy-duty industrial environment use Featuring with industrial-grade IPQ4019 /IPQ4029 chipset Integrated with 2x 2 5G high power Radio module and 2×2 2.4G high power Radio module Support 4.940GHz to 5.825GHz Frequency Range Support 2.400GHz to 2.482GHz Support 2 x 5G MMCX Connectors and 2×2.4G MMCX Support 5MHz/10MHz/20MHz/40MHz/80MHz Bandwidth Support 11ABGN/AC Support fixed data rate RoHS compliance ensure a high level protection of human health and the environment from risks that can be posed by chemicals Our Firmware supports all the modules of Quectel MT7915 + MT7975 Chipset 2.4GHz max 23dBm & 5GHz max 20dBm output power IEEE 802.11ac/ ax compliant & backward compatible with 802.11ax/ac/a/b/g/n 2×2 2.4G & 2×2 5G MIMO Technology, up to 1.8Gbps Mini PCI Express edge connector SupporttheFrequency2412MHz~2482MHz SupporttheFrequency5180MHz~5825MHz RoHS compliance ensure a high level protection of human health and the environment from risks that can be posed by chemicals Supports Spatial Multiplexing,Cyclic-Delay Diversity (CDD), Low-Density Parity Check (LDPC) Codes,Maximal Ratio Combining (MRC), Space Time Block Code (STBC) Supports IEEE 802.11d, e, h, i, k, r, v time stamp, and w standards Supports Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) CardsareindividuallycalibratedforQualityAssurance We'll start with a quick review of how Wi-Fi has changed over the years. In fact, the earliest generation of 802.11 standard can be traced back to 1997, when the wireless speed is very low, only 2Mbps, it is an original standard of the first generation . With the introduction of 802.11b in 1999, the physical layer speed was increased to 11Mbps and there were very few commercial applications. At that time, Wi-Fi was still far away from people's lives In 2003, the third generation of the standard, 802.11a/ g. Laptop began to configure wireless network card and home wireless router appeared in large quantity . Wi-fi comes into ordinary family. EMAIL:sales@wallystech.com WEB: https://www.wallystech.com/ Youtube： https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClmu7LBz_OWxe2VckkQr3tw

Jakob Engblom shared an intriguing thought:   One thing that seems to be happening today with the whole “IoT” move and ubiquity of cellular communications (at least in the rich world) is that “in the field SW upgrade” is becoming easier and easier to do.  Systems that used to be isolated can now be connected, and thus updated if the manufacturer wants to. But this creates a whole new set of questions: for how long do you support a deployed system with updates?  Are you obliged to roll out updates when you find security holes?  Do customers accept that you update their systems?  Who controls the data from these systems? A friend of mine spent a ton of money on a Tesla car recently, and he some interesting stories about its update process. That car is apparently updated by Tesla when the manufacturer feels like doing it.  Consumers have little choice, and user interfaces do change over time.  He might come down in the morning and realize that some element of the car GUI has changed and he has to figure out how to do something with this particular iteration.  Just like with a mobile phone or computer OS, where we are pretty used to this process. It is a bold new world of connected embedded, and scary things will happen. (Source: Personal communication)   Jakob’s comments raises a slew of questions.   I had a network router a few years ago and one day a feature just disappeared – an unsolicited midnight firmware upgrade downgraded the product. Suppose a customer had selected the router specifically for that feature, and a year or three after the purchase it suddenly no longer performs as advertised? My understanding of US law is that he could sue for redress, but no one will do that for a $100 device.   In effect the company was like a thief in the night, sneaking into my office and furtively making off with the goods.   Then there’s the liability problem. Suppose you don’t do a firmware upgrade to patch a security flaw that surfaces years after delivery, and a hacker attacks causing grief. It could be argued you delivered a defective product and chose not to remove the bug(s). If firmware upgrades are possible, does this imply they are mandatory? Must product support go on forever?   Adding an Internet connection to a device changes, I think, the nature of the product in a very significant way. A modern oscilloscope, for instance, is a very complex bit of equipment. Firmware upgrades via, say, a USB stick are pretty straightforward. But if a TCP/IP stack is added it could become a threat vector against a network. What responsibility does the manufacturer have years down the road to patch vulnerabilities?   One of my scopes boots Windows… and it’s rumored that some versions of that OS might actually have imperfect security. My Windows 8.1 computer gets a never-ending stream of updates from Microsoft. Should all of those be applied – on practically a weekly basis – to a ‘net-connected scope?   And what happens when the version of Windows in the equipment loses Microsoft’s support? How culpable is the scope manufacturer then?   Commenters will undoubtedly write “just use Linux.” As I write this on January 19 the first page of Slashdot has a story entitled “Serious Linux Kernel Vulnerability Patched.” Linux might reduce the incidence of problems, but won’t eliminate them.   Whether it’s a Linux- or Windows-based system, an OS upgrade can take a lot of time. How frustrated will users be when they need to quickly probe a few nodes, and the scope tells them too wait for an hour for an upgrade to take place?   On the up side, being able to download new code means the customer can get new features for free. It might be nice to advertise “sometimes you might get some cool new feature, but we have no idea what that might be!” Does that rather vague promise compensate for the business risk of litigation for unpatched problems?   These are issues far over our pay grades. You can be sure the legal profession will be soaked in cash as litigation creates case law. Before that happens zillions of IoT devices will be designed and deployed. I wonder how many companies, having no legal guidance on these matters today, will be retroactively liable when problems surface?   What’s your take?

  ，在深圳南山威尼斯酒店 特维里厅，以虹科和PEAK的赞助商成员参加 2015 Shenzhen CAN FD Tech Day研讨会， 本大会由CiA组织主办，并由虹科/PEAK、Etas, Kvaser, 和 ZLG协办，汇集了70多名汽车电子、工业自动化等行业的工程师，聚焦CAN FD带给我们新的活力和变化。   首先由 CiA主席 Holger Zeltwanger 先生给我们带来了 在维也纳（奥地利）举办的 第 15届 iCC 大会盛况，并介绍了大会特别关注CAN FD，期间多达22个公司演示都与CAN FD的技术发展密切相关。其后在介绍CAN FD的特性之余，在场工程师的提问将大会的讨论如火如荼地展开。 “CAN FD标准已经正式写入ISO 11898-1 -2标准，那么是否有相应的CAN控制器芯片推出了吗？” “因为CAN FD标准刚刚通过ISO标准，部分厂商提供的非ISO标准 CAN FD产品如何兼容？” “传统CAN 与CAN FD的差异化共存问题如何解决？” 以上大多数工程师关注的问题都得到了相应的解答，除了   Holger先生告知目前在几周内就会有独立的CAN 芯片推出外，还告知目前至少有5家以上的产品供应商提供基于FPGA 的CAN FD方案以及产品，而且部分FPGA的内核是由BOSCH公司提供的。   关于CAN FD与传统CAN,，以及Non ISO FD和 ISO FD的通信兼容和共存问题，虹科以德国PEAK公司最新推出的PCAN-Router FD产品作为切入点，提供了一个非常合适的解决方案。 PCAN-Router FD可同时连接CAN FD或者传统CAN网络，基于  ARM Cortex M4F微控制器， 可以通过自由化编程 实现两个通道间的模块动作和数据转换。特别是可以实现传统CAN到CAN FD，或者反之CAN FD向传统CAN的转换。如此可以带来省时省力地将CAN FD应用引入到当前的CAN2.0网络中。 提供的库文件和 GNU ARM工具链 （包括用于C和C++的GNU编译器），可以创建新的自定义功能的固件，并通过CAN总线下载到 PCAN-Router FD。   在会后 Holger Zeltwanger 先生表示在今年第二次来中国之旅中，觉得中国的工程师对CAN FD的兴趣非常高，似乎普遍比欧洲还要高，特别是在非汽车行业。 “ My general impression during the second CiA event tour in 2015 is that the interest on CAN FD is very high. It seems the interest is in average higher than in Europe, in particular in non-automotive applications.---Holger Zeltwanger ”   大会一览：   ---编自虹科技术支持Colin