Talk:Zigbee

Zigbee Bit Rates
The statement "Data transmission rates vary from 20 to 900 kilobits/second." is either incorrect or confusing. The actual data rate is 250kbps. Is the 900kbps intended to mean the data rate between devices or the bit rate on the air? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcwren (talk • contribs) 18:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Jcwren (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Now says up to 250 kbit/s with further detail in Radio hardware section. ~Kvng (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

ZigBee's security flaw while key exchange
This is the paper the german article references: https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-15/materials/us-15-Zillner-ZigBee-Exploited-The-Good-The-Bad-And-The-Ugly-wp.pdf

When a devices is paired with the network, the secret network key is transmitted unsecurely. The problem is, as statet correctly, that the network key in transfered encrypted with a standard key. Therefore any eavedropper can decrypt it. By jamming the network an attacker can "encourage" the owner of the ZigBee network to rejoin the jammed device with the network and then sniff the key. Without the owner unwillingly helping the attacker this flaw is hard to exploit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.66.134 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The article states in the first section that

> ZigBee is typically used in low data rate applications that require long battery life and secure networking (ZigBee networks are secured by 128 bit symmetric encryption keys.)

yet with the unpatchable flaws and downgrade requirements for newer hardware specs ZigBee seems to be only suitable if no effective security is needed.

Or, to phrase it more aggressively: Anyone want to clarify what the Internet of Shit is by example of ZigBee, while deleting the claim actual "encryption" is being deployed effectively by ZigBee?

To paraphrase a wise man: Encryption transforms a transport security problem into a key storage problem, Addendum by me: ... and for ZigBee the key storage failed because irreplaceable master keys are well-known due to a leak.

2003:E4:C71D:8B25:55BB:1FFA:8091:1766 (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added the above paper as a second reference in the Security architecture section. The first reference there is in German. ~Kvng (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Zigbee Bandwidth
I found contrary claims of the channel bandwidth Zigbee devices use. While it is true that the channels are separated by 5 MHz, it is nowhere mentioned in standards that the bandwidth is 5 MHz. I see some research papers claiming that the bandwidth is 2 MHz. E.g. this: Mutual interference analysis of IEEE 802.15.4 and IEEE 802.11b, CMOS RFIC Architecture from Cadence and Agilent webpage Anyone has a clear idea?

Allrite82 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Zigbee says Sixteen channels are allocated in the 2.4 GHz band, spaced 5 MHz apart, though using only 2 MHz of bandwidth each. This is unsourced. The links above are all dead at this point. ~Kvng (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The first commercial ZigBee product
zPoint Products was informed that the ZigBee USB Dongle (as shown at Light Fair in the ZigBee Alliance booth) was the first commercial product in the world (according to the Zigbee Alliance, who invited zPoint Products to demonstrate a ZigBee wireless lighting control system in their booth). That was a surprise given all the hype about ZigBee to date. However, anything else out there appears to be dev. kits or vapor ware, at least as of Sept. 2006. That was certainly the case in April 2006 when the product was first shown.

This can easily be verified by the Zigbee Alliance. Ask Bob Heile, the Chairman, since he's the one that informed us of the status of our product. Bempey 05:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article does not currently identify a first product. I don't see a need to include this. ~Kvng (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Node size
"node size" indicated in kilobytes. This is confusing. An explanation of what is meant by "size" in this context would be helpful.

UML
Are you guys sure that OpenBee is written in UML? I'm pretty sure the M in UML is modelling. As in it is always pseudocode, never real. -- RevRagnarok 02:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

UML is modelling, and then most tools generate code in a standard programming language, although some (experimental ones) can generate machine/object code. They should correctly state that the SW was "designed" in UML, or something more accurate. Bempey 03:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OpenBee is modeling a Zigbee stack in UML from which a tool can generate an implementation. The openbee team is actually using C to test the model on their dev board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.13.149.29 (talk • contribs)

ZigBee node size is small / ZigBee node size is big
''The most capable ZigBee node type is said to require only about 10% of the software of a typical Bluetooth or Wireless Internet node, while the simplest nodes are about 2%[citation needed]. However, actual code sizes are much higher, closer to 50% of Bluetooth code size[citation needed]. ZigBee chip vendors have announced 128 kilobyte devices[citation needed].''

So which is it? If these sentences don't conflict they can at least be cleaned up; it really does read like too many people edited it.


 * What does the 10% versus 50% mean, to say nothing of the 2%? Does the node need smaller data structures than Bluetooth, which is the only explanation that occurs to me? Howard C. Berkowitz 13:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an assertion in the lead (2nd paragraph) that Zigbee is simpler and less expensive. No numbers are given and there appears to no longer be support for this statement in the article's body. ~Kvng (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

But, if this developer also wishes to refer to the specification document, he needs to pay ZigBee their fee.
I know this is a dumb question but what exactly does 'refer' mean in this context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.41.186 (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Zigbee Pro
Here are a couple references if anyone is interested in adding Zigbee Pro info to the article. --Kvng (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added the first to Zigbee. The author of the second is not particularly independent so I have not included it. ~Kvng (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added the first to Zigbee. The author of the second is not particularly independent so I have not included it. ~Kvng (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added the first to Zigbee. The author of the second is not particularly independent so I have not included it. ~Kvng (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

ZigBee certification
We have "individual devices must have a battery life of at least two years to pass ZigBee certification". That sounds out of date, can anyone provide a current reference? AutolycusQ (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added a second source that verifies this certification requirement. Problem is, both sources are from 2006 and both come by way of Atmel. An update is warranted. I personally have many Zigbee devices where batteries last only a few months. ~Kvng (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete Purely Commercial Content
The following link in section "External Links" leads to nothing else but purely commercial content complete with directions to call the "Sales Team of AdaptiveM2M":


 * ZigBee for M2M Technology Find out how zigbee can be used for M2M communications

Because the above link is to nothing else but commercial material I suggest that it is deleted as soon as possible. If no one objects to this message in the next 7 days I will delete the said link.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.156.134.120 (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)