AW: IETF58 - Network Facts
Hi, I had no problems during the whole week. My IPSEC-connection through wireless only dropped one or two times for seconds. Even in my room (12th floor) conections were possible with sufficent radio coverage. For me this was an excellent wireless usage pattern, one among the best during the last 15 meetings attended. This was done using an old CISCO-card with actual drivers under XP. So many thanks again to all who made this possible, it is a tremendous lot of work, I run the network 97 in Munich and know about the problems. H.P. Dittler
RE: IETF58 - Network Facts
Well I was one satisfied customer :-) > ---In other news-- > (Think Red Cross, don't think Power Company) > > I had six people come up to me on Thursday to let me know > that their wireless > connection was acceptable (they used words like great, and no > problems). I > hope that more people would take the time to document their positive > experiences. This will give us more perspective on the total > experience and > it is the only payment these volunteers get from this community. Except for some initial hiccups on Monday, and one location (hotel lobby by the reception desk, where I think the hotel was supposed to have turned off their APs, but clearly didn't), I had pretty near flawless connectivity. Regrettably, I was using an OS not known for its reliability. I had built-in wireless too, which I wasn't sure was going to work because of reception issues at another conference. > > At this point, we know the issues, we know the complaints. > Right now, it > would be nice to hear where the network did work, and some > positive comments. > A message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be great. > > I am going silent on this list for a while, don't want to > stir things up too > much. Responses will be made privately if warranted. > > --Brett -Vach
Re: IETF58 - Network Facts
Is that 11xx as in local group address or xx00 as in universal unicast? Tom Petch -Original Message- From: Adam Roach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'Theodore Ts'o' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Brett Thorson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 20 November 2003 17:23 Subject: RE: IETF58 - Network Facts >Theodore Ts'o wrote: > >> Would it be possible to publish a list of MAC addresses that were >> operating in ad-hoc or AP mode? If all of the happened to come from a >> signle manufacturer, that might be a very interesting data point. > >A lot -- possibly even a majority -- of the cards I saw operating in >ad-hoc mode were using mac address prefixes that aren't assigned >to any manufacturer by the IEEE [1]. Many started with the octet "C0". >I even saw a card in ad-hoc mode with a MAC address of FF:FF:FF::FF:FF:FF. >
Re: IETF58 - Network Facts
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>, Adam Roach writes: >Theodore Ts'o wrote: > >> Would it be possible to publish a list of MAC addresses that were >> operating in ad-hoc or AP mode? If all of the happened to come from a >> signle manufacturer, that might be a very interesting data point. > >A lot -- possibly even a majority -- of the cards I saw operating in >ad-hoc mode were using mac address prefixes that aren't assigned >to any manufacturer by the IEEE [1]. Many started with the octet "C0". >I even saw a card in ad-hoc mode with a MAC address of FF:FF:FF::FF:FF:FF. > I saw some unicast TCP packets sent to MAC address FF:FF:FF::FF:FF:FF -- I have no idea how that happened... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
RE: IETF58 - Network Facts
Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Would it be possible to publish a list of MAC addresses that were > operating in ad-hoc or AP mode? If all of the happened to come from a > signle manufacturer, that might be a very interesting data point. A lot -- possibly even a majority -- of the cards I saw operating in ad-hoc mode were using mac address prefixes that aren't assigned to any manufacturer by the IEEE [1]. Many started with the octet "C0". I even saw a card in ad-hoc mode with a MAC address of FF:FF:FF::FF:FF:FF. /a [1] According to http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/oui.txt which is updated daily.
RE: IETF58 - Network Facts
<> http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,87322,00.html ?f=x68 So at least we know one place not to take the WiFi-enabled horde that is the IETF road-show! Then again... /gordon
Re: IETF58 - Network Facts
On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 04:57 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: Would it be possible to publish a list of MAC addresses that were operating in ad-hoc or AP mode? I'll confess - it happened to me. 12" PowerBook running MacOS X 10.2.8. It was flipping into ad-hoc mode pretty much every time I tried to use the wireless network until I installed an updated Airport driver. Fortunately the menu bar icon shows a small icon of a computer in the middle of the Airport icon when it's in ad-hoc mode, so at least you can spot it when it happens, and fortunately there's a fix available. Melinda
Re: IETF58 - Network Facts
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:26:30AM -0500, Brett Thorson wrote: > > 10% of the community using a wireless NIC was operating in ad-hoc or AP mode > at some point during the meeting. Would it be possible to publish a list of MAC addresses that were operating in ad-hoc or AP mode? If all of the happened to come from a signle manufacturer, that might be a very interesting data point. A public "hall of shame" might be very useful. If we do detect a pattern, perhaps a press release, "User friendly OS from company X disrupts Internet standards meeting" might get fast action to fix buggy implementations! > If these volunteers didn't step forward, there would be no network. > Double or triple the meeting fees, it wouldn't cover the cost of > > suitable replacements for the talented volunteers or the hardware on > temporary loan. I've run those numbers, those are the facts. And we definitely need to thank those volunteers! One question --- did we do a public acknowledgement of the terminal and network volunteers this time at the plenary? Maybe it happened on one of the days when I arrived late to the plenary, but if it didn't, let me express my thanks and kudos now. On a similar note, is there a way that we can better acknowledge the efforts who worked so hard? In addition, what kind of offers of help would be useful, as opposed to just Getting In The Way? Is it more bodies? More equipment? More diagnostic tools? - Ted
IETF58 - Network Facts
I am still collecting data from the IETF 58 network, when I can state additional facts I will post them along this thread. Until then, here are some facts that correct messages posted previously. All wireless access points were set at 1 milliwatt on channel 6 when they were first deployed. On and after Monday these value were changed. We did not run all access points on 1 milliwatt on channel 6 beyond Sunday night. 10% of the community using a wireless NIC was operating in ad-hoc or AP mode at some point during the meeting. I noticed many people in the terminal room using a hard wire connection. When I did a non-scientific survey of a sample of these users, they did not have a wireless card at all. Cost of the terminal room is not appropriate here. If these volunteers didn't step forward, there would be no network. Double or triple the meeting fees, it wouldn't cover the cost of suitable replacements for the talented volunteers or the hardware on temporary loan. I've run those numbers, those are the facts. ---In other news-- (Think Red Cross, don't think Power Company) I had six people come up to me on Thursday to let me know that their wireless connection was acceptable (they used words like great, and no problems). I hope that more people would take the time to document their positive experiences. This will give us more perspective on the total experience and it is the only payment these volunteers get from this community. At this point, we know the issues, we know the complaints. Right now, it would be nice to hear where the network did work, and some positive comments. A message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be great. I am going silent on this list for a while, don't want to stir things up too much. Responses will be made privately if warranted. --Brett
