Re: Unsure of WLAN diagnosis (Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode)
Harald wrote: It would be a Really Good Thing if we could have equipment available in Dallas to locate a few of these laptops and check out what's *actually* going on with them (OS, drivers, configuration) Agreed. It can't be that difficult to find a few and see what's really going on, and if we don't do something official, well, there are some people out there who were pretty peeved in Vancouver... and when we're in *Texas*, there's no telling what they might do. Barry -- Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba http://www.research.ibm.com/spam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Unsure of WLAN diagnosis (Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode)
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Joel Jaeggli wrote: If the ap where a small linux box without bss implementation such as hostap then it would have to run in bss mode (adhoc) just a correction here: If the ap where a small linux box without bss implementation such as hostap then it would have to run in ibss mode (adhoc). It would be a Really Good Thing if we could have equipment available in Dallas to locate a few of these laptops and check out what's *actually* going on with them (OS, drivers, configuration) Pointing a finger at particular machine in a room with 800 transmitting radio's is actually kind of hard. I think it's fair to say that the IETF 65 hosting team is aware of the issue. Barking up the wrong tree is fun, but doesn't help catch the cat. Just because there's a cat in that tree doesn't mean there aren't other cats skulking around. -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Unsure of WLAN diagnosis (Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode)
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 10. november 2005 20:33 -0500 Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I honestly think that there is something more than that. I have seen dozens of instances of "IETF64" as an ad hoc network. (I see 6 sitting here in the plenary.) Unless there is someone with a perverse sense of humor spoofing me, I suspect that people are trying to join to the ietf64 network and getting it wrong, both in captialization, and in configuration. (Oddly, I have yet to see "ietf64" as an ad hoc network.) Of course, when the network availability is poor, mis-configuration doesn't stand out like it does when everyone else in on the network except you. I do wonder if our diagnoses are wrong - the number of W2K laptops in the world (and at the IETF meetings) seems to be *decreasing*, while the number of ad-hoc mode nodes is *increasing*, despite our attempts at user education by posting to the IETF list.. Harald, As I said before this was one variant of host that we identified in the past that could cause the problem... Once the adhoc network exists, a number of different configurations will happily join it unless told explicitly not to, thereby perpetuating the problem. It came as a surprise to me when I encountered, this weekend, a public WLAN that required people to configure their PCs in ad-hoc mode (they said the base station was running in IBSS mode, not BSS - whatever that means). If the ap where a small linux box without bss implementation such as hostap then it would have to run in bss mode (adhoc) It would be a Really Good Thing if we could have equipment available in Dallas to locate a few of these laptops and check out what's *actually* going on with them (OS, drivers, configuration) Pointing a finger at particular machine in a room with 800 transmitting radio's is actually kind of hard. I think it's fair to say that the IETF 65 hosting team is aware of the issue. Barking up the wrong tree is fun, but doesn't help catch the cat. Just because there's a cat in that tree doesn't mean there aren't other cats skulking around. -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Unsure of WLAN diagnosis (Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode)
--On 10. november 2005 20:33 -0500 Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I honestly think that there is something more than that. I have seen dozens of instances of "IETF64" as an ad hoc network. (I see 6 sitting here in the plenary.) Unless there is someone with a perverse sense of humor spoofing me, I suspect that people are trying to join to the ietf64 network and getting it wrong, both in captialization, and in configuration. (Oddly, I have yet to see "ietf64" as an ad hoc network.) Of course, when the network availability is poor, mis-configuration doesn't stand out like it does when everyone else in on the network except you. I do wonder if our diagnoses are wrong - the number of W2K laptops in the world (and at the IETF meetings) seems to be *decreasing*, while the number of ad-hoc mode nodes is *increasing*, despite our attempts at user education by posting to the IETF list.. It came as a surprise to me when I encountered, this weekend, a public WLAN that required people to configure their PCs in ad-hoc mode (they said the base station was running in IBSS mode, not BSS - whatever that means). It would be a Really Good Thing if we could have equipment available in Dallas to locate a few of these laptops and check out what's *actually* going on with them (OS, drivers, configuration) Barking up the wrong tree is fun, but doesn't help catch the cat. pgpn7jI0xd0mp.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
