We currently have three external routes, all are up.
Wireless has been deployed to the hotel, and we are still working to get good
signal coverage to the Brit's Pub. We have a solution that will start to get
executed later this afternoon. That should dramatically increase the
coverage in that
Hi,
> We have been getting some reports of rooted machines (IETF Attendee machines,
> not IETF NOC Machines) that are scanning and causing a lot of traffic on the
> network. IP Addresses are:
> 130.129.139.106
> 130.129.139.203
> Please check your machines for these addresses. If they are your
I also have seen "ietf58" as an ad-hoc network (or "Computer to Computer
Network" as Apple calls it) in several locations today, including here
in Salon C.
I have to wonder if this is just cluelessness or malicious behaviour,
someone trying to "steal" packets.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and P
Roland -
I'll just note that when I ran the AODV code earlier today,
I had to hand reset noth my mode & my essid (redhat linux/
wiconfig) after stopping the test code - this may not be
totally transparent to folks and they may reset the ssid
but miss the mode setting...
Lucy E. Lynch
CTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: IETF58 - Network Status - 12:05PM Local Time
> Hi,
>
> > We have been getting some reports of rooted machines (IETF Attendee machines,
> > not IETF NOC Mach
I am also seeing another ad-hoc terminal as "janog_wa" in the terminal
room.
The mac address is 02:07:D1:E5:17:27.
On 2003/11/10, at 16:55, Ole J. Jacobsen wrote:
I also have seen "ietf58" as an ad-hoc network (or "Computer to
Computer
Network" as Apple calls it) in several locations today, inc
gt; Jordi
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Roland Bless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Brett Thorson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:22 PM
> Subject:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:06:28 -0800 (PST)
"Lucy E. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll just note that when I ran the AODV code earlier today,
> I had to hand reset noth my mode & my essid (redhat linux/
> wiconfig) after stopping the test code - this may not be
> totally transparent to folks
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Is a very bad behavior from some people that it seems don't know how to
> use their own computer.
>
> I will say that this people should pay 5 times the normal fee in the
> next IETF meeting, because the big number of troubles that they create
> t
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: IETF58 - Network Status - 12:05PM Local Time
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > Is a very bad behavior from some people that it seems don't know how to
>
There is an AODV test running but it requires, uh, running AODV. See:
http://moment.cs.ucsb.edu/aodv-ietf
It actually has nothing to do with the evil that is MSFT's ad hoc. And,
it also works if you get everything configured correctly.
However, it is currently shutdown until the wireless i
It sounds to me like this at least as likely to be caused by
cluelessness as malice. If we eventually want a world where networks
this big are everywhere, we can't afford to blame the users for
cluelessness when those networks break, especially since the average
user in that future will be at
As for those people who run around with their cards in ad hoc mode,
yes,
especially here, they should know better.
One problem may be those "helpful" features where the OS is switching
to ad-hoc when there is no base station to be seen. In Mac OS X 10.2,
you can disable that (switch off "Allow
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:55:59 EST, Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> And if it's this easy to mess up maliciously, well maybe we should
> be commissioning an IETF police force that will develop the tools to
> track down the offending laptops in real time and pour diet Coke in
ember 11, 2003 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: IETF58 - Network Status - 12:05PM Local Time
> It sounds to me like this at least as likely to be caused by
> cluelessness as malice. If we eventually want a world where networks
> this big are everywhere, we can't afford to blame the users for
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 11 09:53:18 2003
>>From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: IETF58 - Network Status - 12:05PM Local Time
>>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:28:51 -0600
>>X-
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Kevin C. Almeroth wrote:
> But the result is independent of whether people are running in ad hoc
> mode... it has to do with AP tuning, etc.
I just noticed that where I'm sitting in the lobby, one can pick up 2
networks: ietf58 and hhonors.
Neither one charges for SSH tunne
On 11-nov-03, at 11:04, Carsten Bormann wrote:
As for those people who run around with their cards in ad hoc mode,
yes,
especially here, they should know better.
One problem may be those "helpful" features where the OS is switching
to ad-hoc when there is no base station to be seen. In Mac OS
-0800, Kevin C. Almeroth wrote:
> >>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 11 09:53:18 2003
> >>From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Subject: Re: IETF58 - Network Status - 12:05PM Local Time
> >>Date: T
19 matches
Mail list logo