RE: Meeting Survey Results
Jordi, > Don't want to start a new useless thread here, my point was > basically to > show that b/g has a wider adoption and 75% of the laptops don't have > built-in a, so it makes sense to make additional effort to > get it working. My basic problem with this and previous comments on this topic from you is the implication that with better planning and/or additional effort the problems would be solved. If you believe this to be so, then please share that technical knowledge. I have been involved in most of the IETF wireless networks for the last three years. We don't plan in advance to deploy wireless networks with issues. Some of what I consider the best in the business have worked on this over the years, and we still run into issues. Concrete technical suggestions for improvements and contributions of resources (equipment and people) are welcome. Just telling us to put forth "additional effort to get it working" doesn't get the job done. Karen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Meeting Survey Results
Well, in theory, 802.11a should scale better because of the shorter range and the additional non-overlapping channels. Now, I'm not guaranteeing that there won't be other issues we haven't identified. We haven't had the density on 11a yet to find the problems we don't know about. What we do know is that thus far folks using 11a on IETF networks have been happier than folks using 11b. Karen > How much of the benefit of 801.11a is because so few people are using > it? Would it hold up if everyone switched to it? > > Yes, there are more frequencies and less congestion. Is that enough? > > --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Meeting Survey Results
Jordi, With the RF characteristics of 802.11b/g (including the fact that there are only three non-overlapping channels (in the US) and they all exist in the already overcrowded 2.4 GHz freq range) and the density of users in the meeting rooms at the IETF, you cannot "warrantee" a level of performance. I attend both IEEE 802 and IETF meetings and both struggle with wireless coverage at those densities for this very basic physical reason. The more transmitters you have transmitting on the same frequencies in the same space, the more noise you will have. The more noise you have the more performance issues you will experience. Technology and product evolution will improve the situation, but we have to work with what we have. While 802.11a hasn't overtaken 802.11b/g in general, it is much better suited for our environment. There are more non-overlapping channels, it operates in the less crowded 5 GHz range, and the range is shorter. Thus you can deploy more APs in the same space without contributing to the overall noise issue. We are suggesting that users that are willing and able should consider investing in 802.11a cards for a happier IETF network experience. Anything we can do to reduce the level of noise at will make the experience better for the remaining users. Past and current NOC teams plan to deploy the best network they can with the resources available. Donations of equipment and expertise are always welcome. Karen > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 13:44 > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Meeting Survey Results > > > Hi Jonne, > > I'm not sure if I got it. My MUST was on the other way > around: We really > need to warrantee good coverage for b/g to 75% of the participants. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > > De: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Organización: NET/ST/IED > > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Fecha: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:35:13 +0200 > > Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > CC: "ietf@ietf.org" > > Asunto: Re: Meeting Survey Results > > > > Hi Jordi, > > > > the preference for .11a was stated because we want to make sure that > > everybody who has the possibility for it would use it. It makes the > > network much more reliable. Of course b and g are provided as well. > > > > It is a recommendation not a MUST, like the mail says. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jonne. > > > > On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 22:57 -0400, ext JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > >> Hi Ray, > >> > >> I'm not sure if we need some clarification on this: > >> > >>> 1. Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible > with 802.11a. > >>> [Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a] > >> > >> According to the survey, only 25.5% of the participants > have 802.11a, which > >> in my opinion means that 11b/g MUST be reliable for 75% of > the participants > >> in the next meeting. > >> > >> Remember that if we don't have an 802.11a interface in our > laptops is > >> because *THEY DONT'T HAVE IT*. > >> > >> In my own case, having a Mac is not easy to get built-in > 802.11a. I can of > >> course buy an external card, but is not reasonable (more > power consumption, > >> more things to carry, etc.). There is one more reason, is > that in most of > >> the world is not (today) widely used, so buying it almost > only for IETF > >> meetings, don't make too much sense. > >> > >> Even do, if it is just me, I will consider buying it, but > I don't really > >> agree to get this asked for 75% of the participants. It is > not a choice ! > >> > >> So the clarification is ... what we actually will get at > IETF65, and if > >> something must be changed now for getting good 802.11b/g > support, please, > >> make sure about that now ! > >> > >> Regards, > >> Jordi > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> De: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Fecha: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:45:07 -0500 (EST) > >>> Para: "ietf@ietf.org" > >>> Asunto: Meeting Survey Results > >>> > >>> All; > >>> > >>> More than 300 responded to the Meeting Survey conducted > following IETF 64 > >>> in Vancouver. > >>> > >>> See survey results link below. > >>> > >>> Among the results are: > >>> 1. Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible > with 802.11a. > >>> [Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a] > >>> > >>> 2. Nearly 60% (with an additional 23% undecided) prefer > dinner following > >>> all sessions of the day. > >>> > >>> 3. Only 23% prefer a full day schedule for Fridays. > >>> > >>> 4. Cookies are not the only craving for breaks -- 74% > want more healthy > >>> choices. > >>> > >>> 5. Only 1/3 of the respondents expressed satisfaction > with the wireless > >>> connectivity. > >>> > >>> And given the opportunity to say what they liked and > didn't - 130 told us > >>> how they felt. > >>> > >>> Read it for yourselves: > >>> http://
ietf63 network status
Folks, We are aware of and tracking a couple of issues that we'd like to pass along to you. First, for Mac OS X users, wep doesn't seem to work with the combination of Cisco 1200 hardware/firmware that we are using. Please use either the open or 1x WLANs. If you are running the Tiger version of Mac OS X, please be forewarned that it does take awhile to authenticate with 1x (30 - 45 seconds). Second, a small subset of laptops with embedded wireless built with the Intel 2100 mini pci wireless chipset appear to cause the laptop to crash. Current solutions include updating the driver or disabling the wireless in the BIOS and using the wired connections. The helpdesk folks can help you with this issue. Karen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless
Title: Re:reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless I would contend that it isn't a planning issue as much as a resource issue. We had a mailing list to discuss planning. What we lacked was resources including time, equipment, and facilities. This is always going to be an issue as long as you have unhosted IETFs with networks built by volunteers. Karen -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZSent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 13:05To: ietf@ietf.orgSubject: Re:reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wirelessHi Karen,Thanks for your feedback. I was one of those having problems and not reporting it, but I didn’t saw any email asking for more feedback after Monday, so I assumed the “fixing” work was on-going. Actually I’d problems to read my emails, and I believe even lost some emails for some strange circumstance, which I tend to associate to the IETF connectivity, because not having changed anything in my server, neither my laptop, when I come back to Madrid, everything was working fine (and as said, NOTHING changed).The sad thing is that for me everything was working fine on Monday, because even when IPv4 was not working very fine, I was using IPv6 and worked very well :-))) So from my point of view a big mistake disabling it, because didn’t solved the problems, as we have learned afterwards.In *short* I will say that my conclusion to your exposition is that we lack for a proper planning, something that we know already for the meeting arrangements, but which is more critical in terms of ensuring a proper network deployment (you need time to think about what can be wrong, what went wrong already in previous occasions, and try to avoid it as much as possible).May be will be interesting to setup a mail exploder for taking care of the meetings planning and preparation ? It can be not only technical but also about the logistics of the meetings (or two different mail exploders).Regards,Jordi De: "Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Fecha: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:08:51 -0600Para: Asunto: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wirelessFolks, After a few days of decompressing, I have been considering what to say that is helpful without unnecessarily prolonging this conversation. I have been involved in the delivery of wireless for six IETF meetings (#s 46, 56, 58, 60, 61, and 62), some less painful than others and four without hosts. For those commenting on how a familiar venue should help and wasn't it better last time we were in Minneapolis, I distinctly remember sitting in the health club hot tub at the end of IETF58 swearing I would never do the wireless again. Believe me, it wasn't better last time. For whatever reason, Minneapolis hasn't been kind to IETF wireless recently. As I wrote this it got longer and longer, so the abridged version is: - We had problems on Monday, but we believed the wlan to be operational (albeit without IPv6) with a few obscure problem reports from Tuesday onward. If people were indeed experiencing debilitating problems all week, then it is unfortunate that we were not aware of the issues. - We can document lessons learned and recommendations for future hosts, but I believe the current model for providing wireless to attendees is broken and needs to be fixed. I would be happy to participate in the discussion on how to fix this. These discussions should probably take place off this already overloaded list. So, unless you want gory details and rambling… you can stop reading here… Technical Summary/Issues: - We had no wireless hardware one week before we were scheduled to install the wireless. We twisted arms to get hardware and support from two companies who really stepped up at the last moment. We started the wireless install on Friday, March 4th. - We did not deploy anything new or experimental. We deployed what we had available. In the case of the wireless, the alternative was about a dozen Cisco 350s the secretariat had stashed away in case of emergency. We did what we have done for the past two IETF meetings – only with a different combination of equipment in a different venue. The addition of 802.11a did not add complexity and if anything improved the situation by moving some of our wireless users out of the b/g range. I would agree that we could drop the wep and .1x portions, but again, this worked fine for the previous two events. Believe me, we are very risk adverse. - After a surprisingly easy install, we had a meltdown Monday morning at the beginning of the first session. This meltdown and the following shockwaves on Monday resulted from some less than optimal deployment decisions, a confi
reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless
Title: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless Folks, After a few days of decompressing, I have been considering what to say that is helpful without unnecessarily prolonging this conversation. I have been involved in the delivery of wireless for six IETF meetings (#s 46, 56, 58, 60, 61, and 62), some less painful than others and four without hosts. For those commenting on how a familiar venue should help and wasn't it better last time we were in Minneapolis, I distinctly remember sitting in the health club hot tub at the end of IETF58 swearing I would never do the wireless again. Believe me, it wasn't better last time. For whatever reason, Minneapolis hasn't been kind to IETF wireless recently. As I wrote this it got longer and longer, so the abridged version is: - We had problems on Monday, but we believed the wlan to be operational (albeit without IPv6) with a few obscure problem reports from Tuesday onward. If people were indeed experiencing debilitating problems all week, then it is unfortunate that we were not aware of the issues. - We can document lessons learned and recommendations for future hosts, but I believe the current model for providing wireless to attendees is broken and needs to be fixed. I would be happy to participate in the discussion on how to fix this. These discussions should probably take place off this already overloaded list. So, unless you want gory details and rambling… you can stop reading here… Technical Summary/Issues: - We had no wireless hardware one week before we were scheduled to install the wireless. We twisted arms to get hardware and support from two companies who really stepped up at the last moment. We started the wireless install on Friday, March 4th. - We did not deploy anything new or experimental. We deployed what we had available. In the case of the wireless, the alternative was about a dozen Cisco 350s the secretariat had stashed away in case of emergency. We did what we have done for the past two IETF meetings – only with a different combination of equipment in a different venue. The addition of 802.11a did not add complexity and if anything improved the situation by moving some of our wireless users out of the b/g range. I would agree that we could drop the wep and .1x portions, but again, this worked fine for the previous two events. Believe me, we are very risk adverse. - After a surprisingly easy install, we had a meltdown Monday morning at the beginning of the first session. This meltdown and the following shockwaves on Monday resulted from some less than optimal deployment decisions, a configuration issue, a bug in the deployed code, and some unforeseen interactions with the infrastructure. In an attempt to stabilize things, we shed a number of capabilities culminating in a downgrade of controller code on Monday night. I would like to say that we did this in a careful and reasoned fashion, but I will admit there was a fair amount of chaos. - Tuesday morning we wandered around trying to see how things were going. Most people we talked to seemed happy enough at the time but willing to tell us war stories from Monday. (Thank you, but we already knew Monday was bad.) We were getting sporadic reports of IP connectivity problems, but we couldn't seem to catch anyone actively experiencing the problem. I sent out email soliciting input from people experiencing or having experienced the problem sometime after Monday. I received a total of four responses over the next two days. - At this point, we considered moving to more current code, but the reports we were getting indicated that things were working. Because our perception at that point was that things were working, we made a decision on Tuesday evening not to upgrade. - We don't really have a good way to measure the user experience. In this case, we thought the wireless was mostly working. I asked for gentle feedback during the meeting. With the exception of Steve Casner who patiently reported back to us, we received basically nothing. The helpdesk was also tracking problems for us and again after Monday received very few reports. - Until the flood of email started on Friday, we believed that we had delivered a working wireless network (after Monday) and with an occasional problem that impacted a small subset of users but was not debilitating. Structural/Administrative Issues: - I do not see much motivation for hosts (or vendors for a meeting without a host) to support the IETF network. The risk to benefit ratio is just too high. They can get much better exposure in environments that are less stressful and that they have more control over. - Advanced staging helps to reduce configuration issues and allows more time for operational troubleshooting onsite. This can't happen when you don't have a host or
update on wireless status at ietf62
Title: update on wireless status at ietf62 Folks, So, where are we... well... We had a number of problems yesterday that we believe we have resolved. We have turned off 802.11g because of all in noise (including the room projectors). We do still have some issues on the table, and we appreciate gentle user feedback on the status of things. We are actively troubleshooting a particular problem that appears to affect some users but not all. It is also not specific to a particular AP. If you get in a state where you have an IP address but you do not have IP connectivity, and you don't mind spending a few spare cycles with us, please get in touch with the help desk in the terminal room. We are trying to get a good trace of a client currently in this state. Alternatively, we have some evidence that reseting the wireless interface may clear up this problem. Anyhow, keep the feedback coming. Karen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
