Quoth Kacheong Poon on Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 05:59:09PM +0800:
> David Bustos wrote:
> > Do you mean that we won't be able to read all of the packets we receive?
>
> How do you know that there are actually packets flowing around?
We don't, so we can't rely on them. If we find them though, they might
be useful.
> > Why do you think it would be a hack? If the administrator says "Choose
> > home if you see MAC address X" (though I think most of the time the
> > administrator will want to specify more selective metrics), and we see
> > MAC address X, shouldn't we choose "home"?
>
> Assuming we are still discussing on the wireless case, the
> above suggestion is almost equivalent to saying that when we
> see the BSSID X, we are at home. But I think the problem we
> are discussing is that if the BSSID is different, what should
> the default action be?
I don't think that's what we're discussing here, but I think the answer
to that question is obvious: If we're not sure whether it's legal to
transmit on the network, tell the user whatever information we've
gathered and ask for permission. Otherwise, start probing for the
networks we know.
> > Wirelessness is the point here. Due to wireless's broadcast nature, we
> > can get a nonzero amount of information without sending anything. "It's
> > a hack, it's not robust" doesn't seem like a good argument for
> > withholding it from the user('s tests). "Seeing a packet with a known
> > MAC address isn't sufficient legal justification to begin transmitting"
> > is.
>
> If we replace MAC address with BSSID above, is the suggestion
> something new?
No. As far as I know, it would just require more work to sniff the
packets.
David
