WLAN
Hi, nice to notice that the IETF WLAN is also working here at the Embassy Suites hotel, which is far (ab. 2 miles) away from the Sheraton... Is here a secret/uninformed access point or is the range of WLAN this awesome on this side of the world?-) BR, Teemu --- Teemu Rinta-aho[EMAIL PROTECTED] NomadicLab, Ericsson Research +358 9 299 3078 FIN-02420 Jorvas, Finland +358 40 562 3066 ---
Re: WLAN
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Måns Nilsson wrote: > > nice to notice that the IETF WLAN is also working here at the > > Embassy Suites hotel, which is far (ab. 2 miles) away from the > > Sheraton... Is here a secret/uninformed access point or is the range > > of WLAN this awesome on this side of the world?-) > > It's a Qualcomm device. So? My network interface card is not. I just wanted to know if there is an access point in the hotel or not. Teemu
Re: WLAN
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Harald Koch wrote: > There was an access point in the Embassy Suites Hotel. It was not > connected to the rest of the IETF LAN. It was instead connected to the > Internet via a Qualcomm HDR, a high-speed cellular data connection being > tested by Qualcomm. > > An enterprising engineer installed an 802.11 access point and an HDR > modem, and connected the two via an ethernet cable. Voila, instant > internet. Thank you. That was nice service from Qualcomm, just too bad there was no information of the wireless coverage on the meeting web pages. --- Teemu Rinta-aho[EMAIL PROTECTED] NomadicLab, Ericsson Research +358 9 299 3078 FIN-02420 Jorvas, Finland +358 40 562 3066 ---
Re: WLAN
Teemu Rinta-aho wrote: > Thank you. That was nice service from Qualcomm, just too > bad there was no information of the wireless coverage > on the meeting web pages. It wasn't kept secret, though; they had a table set up in the Sheraton (opposite the social event/LAN card desk) with information. -- /=\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist || |eCal Corp. |"The struggle is always worthwhile, if the end | |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|be worthwhile and the means honorable; | ||foreknowledge of defeat is not sufficient reason| ||to withdraw from the contest." -- Adron | ||e'Kieron, by Steven Brust | \=/
Re: WLAN
Additionally, after network shutdown on Friday, Jeff Schiller cross-connected his his Apple AirPort to his HDR/Hornet box, and was providing NATed wireless service to folks still hanging out in the lobby of the east tower of the Hotel.
Re: WLAN
At 11:03 AM 12/19/00 +0200, Teemu Rinta-aho wrote: >Thank you. That was nice service from Qualcomm, just too >bad there was no information of the wireless coverage >on the meeting web pages. for the record, apart from Qualcomm's HDR service, the Wireless was Cisco Aironet.
WLAN at IETF55
We are seeing some of the usual problems with the wireless support at IETF55 in Atlanta. To help mitigate the problems: 1) Make sure you laptop is configured with SSID of IETF55 2) Do not allow your laptop to run in peer-to-peer mode. Set it to Access Point only mode. We are seeing many nodes running in peer-to-peer mode. It is essential that people not run in peer-to-peer mode. If you run in peer-to-peer mode (even unintentionally) it will disrupt other people and the overall wireless network operation. Many new OS's will fall back to peer-to-peer mode by default. Please make yours does not do this. See http://www.ietf55.ops.ietf.org/ietf55/NetworkTerminal for more detail on OS setup. Thanks, Bob (for the NOC team) p.s. Later today we will start confiscating the wireless cards of people running in peer-to-peer mode
Wlan station overlap.
I can't find the mail address of the IETF56 NOC, but in Continental7 there is a overlap on channel 6 between two basestations, but you might already know that. ietf56 00:0C:30:25:9C:DF 11 15 Managed unknown No (null) ietf56 00:0B:FD:04:16:0A 6 26 Managed unknown No (null) ietf56 00:0B:BE:F8:85:B0 6 27 Managed unknown No (null) Best regards, - kurtis -
Scheduling in WLAN
Hallo! I am sorry if I am not supposed to send this message in this list. I have problems in the choose of a real time scheduling algorithm for packets in a wireless LAN (802.11b). My project is the transmission of MPEG4 over WLAN and I'm trying to use a PEP (Performance Enhancing Proxy) to do that. thanks, Nejd ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
howto WLAN, several subnets
Hi, I was not at the last IETF, and couldn't see live the reportedly bad workings of WLAN. I am not going to make suggestions to 58crew since I'm certain they've already tried lots of configurations. Just to share our thoughts on how we make work several independent/deterministic-behaviour 802.11b subnets: -for the general public, set the AP's with both an essid and a key, in Infrastructure mode (managed). -for the aodv public, convene to use a different essid and a different key and ad-hoc mode. If the aodv people need several ad-hoc mode subnets, just set yet another essid+key; of course all essid's and key's must be different each compared to the other. We have experience with several independent/deterministic-behaviour WLAN links set up that way. But, even if this works well with several AP types and cards, there exist cards out there that only support enc at 128bit while others only at 64bit, which makes _any_ use of encryption non-portable. That says, if ietf crew decides to put a key 64bit then there will be people not able to connect. Same if it decides for 128bit. To me, the whole story is a matter of compatibility, backward compatibility and forward compatibility between various versions of the 802.11 standards _and_ of their implementations. It is exactly like with Word versions: it's the same Doc format but not quite depending on the Windows version too. I do not think anyone could be blamed of "interfering" with a WLAN network, most notably because this is unlicensed spectrum; I presume harmonics of an old microwave oven could be blamed for interference with the ietf wlan as much as a user not knowing his intel laptop has centrino. Alex
IETF57 Wien WLAN readiness?
Hi, As a lot of folks are coming to IETF57 early, it would be interesting to know when: - the WLAN network is estimated to be operational - when/whether it is possible to come to the conf. center (i.e. as it isn't in a hotel, is it open for IETF'ers e.g. on Saturday already) -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
what exactly is the point of having a wep key shared by 2000 people. except to have another thing for people to screw up when they try and type it in our paste it. thereby increasing the support overhead at the help desk. joelja On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Hi, I was not at the last IETF, and couldn't see live the reportedly bad > workings of WLAN. I am not going to make suggestions to 58crew since > I'm certain they've already tried lots of configurations. Just to share > our thoughts on how we make work several > independent/deterministic-behaviour 802.11b subnets: > > -for the general public, set the AP's with both an essid and a key, in > Infrastructure mode (managed). > > -for the aodv public, convene to use a different essid and a different > key and ad-hoc mode. If the aodv people need several ad-hoc mode > subnets, just set yet another essid+key; of course all essid's and > key's must be different each compared to the other. > > We have experience with several independent/deterministic-behaviour WLAN > links set up that way. > > But, even if this works well with several AP types and cards, there > exist cards out there that only support enc at 128bit while others only > at 64bit, which makes _any_ use of encryption non-portable. That says, > if ietf crew decides to put a key 64bit then there will be people not > able to connect. Same if it decides for 128bit. > > To me, the whole story is a matter of compatibility, backward > compatibility and forward compatibility between various versions of the > 802.11 standards _and_ of their implementations. > > It is exactly like with Word versions: it's the same Doc format but not > quite depending on the Windows version too. > > I do not think anyone could be blamed of "interfering" with a WLAN > network, most notably because this is unlicensed spectrum; I presume > harmonics of an old microwave oven could be blamed for interference with > the ietf wlan as much as a user not knowing his intel laptop has centrino. > > Alex > > > -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
Joel Jaeggli wrote: what exactly is the point of having a wep key shared by 2000 people. I didn't mean it for data confidentiality; I meant it for building the wires W in WEP not for the P privacy. Basically one such W for ietf and one for aodv. We've noticed that setting both the essid and the key helps a lot with the automatic detection various procedures, such as end-user laptops don't get automatically attached to essid's that happen to be advertised without keys by other end-users' laptops. except to have another thing for people to screw up when they try and type it in our paste it. thereby increasing the support overhead at the help desk. Yes, I understand that talking in terms of 2000 actual people is different than in terms of 20some hosts we're using. Alex
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > -for the general public, set the AP's with both an essid and a key, in > Infrastructure mode (managed). > > -for the aodv public, convene to use a different essid and a different > key and ad-hoc mode. If the aodv people need several ad-hoc mode > subnets, just set yet another essid+key; of course all essid's and > key's must be different each compared to the other. [...] Exactly what problem is being solved by the introduction of a key? My perception is that it brings more problems than it fixes (as you stated), and gives a wrong sense of security to boot. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > what exactly is the point of having a wep key shared by 2000 people. > > I didn't mean it for data confidentiality; I meant it for building the > wires W in WEP not for the P privacy. Basically one such W for ietf and > one for aodv. > > We've noticed that setting both the essid and the key helps a lot with > the automatic detection various procedures, such as end-user laptops > don't get automatically attached to essid's that happen to be advertised > without keys by other end-users' laptops. I expect you'll get a bounch of nodes in adhoc mode with the ietf5X ssid and the ietf5x wep key as well... > > except to have another thing for people to screw up when they try and > > type it in our paste it. thereby increasing the support overhead at > > the help desk. > > Yes, I understand that talking in terms of 2000 actual people is > different than in terms of 20some hosts we're using. > > Alex > -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
Pekka Savola wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: -for the general public, set the AP's with both an essid and a key, in Infrastructure mode (managed). -for the aodv public, convene to use a different essid and a different key and ad-hoc mode. If the aodv people need several ad-hoc mode subnets, just set yet another essid+key; of course all essid's and key's must be different each compared to the other. [...] Exactly what problem is being solved by the introduction of a key? Maybe, helping to find conceptual "wires" to attach to in a deterministic manner, not necessarily private. One can not accidentally attach to such a wire without explicitely setting a key. My perception is that it brings more problems than it fixes (as you stated), I stated that if crew decides 128bit then all people having 128bit cards can work ok (and not those with 48bit-exclusively cards). It does not stop an attacker to set his own linux AP with same key and essid ietf, fooling passers by; but at that point that person, if found, _can_ be blamed. and gives a wrong sense of security to boot. I didn't claim security. So, if the use of keys gives a false sense of security and moreover brings overload at the helpdesk, sorry for the proposal, something else must be used. Alex
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
Joel Jaeggli wrote: We've noticed that setting both the essid and the key helps a lot with the automatic detection various procedures, such as end-user laptops don't get automatically attached to essid's that happen to be advertised without keys by other end-users' laptops. I expect you'll get a bounch of nodes in adhoc mode with the ietf5X ssid and the ietf5x wep key as well... If my node has mode "managed" it will never attach to laptop nodes having same key same essid but mode ad-hoc. (my linux node, I know not about windows drivers). Alex
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Joel Jaeggli wrote: > >>We've noticed that setting both the essid and the key helps a lot with > >>the automatic detection various procedures, such as end-user laptops > >>don't get automatically attached to essid's that happen to be advertised > >> without keys by other end-users' laptops. > > > > > > I expect you'll get a bounch of nodes in adhoc mode with the ietf5X ssid > > and the ietf5x wep key as well... > > If my node has mode "managed" it will never attach to laptop nodes > having same key same essid but mode ad-hoc. > > (my linux node, I know not about windows drivers). that's exactly what's happening though... we have very good ideas about whose wireless implementations are doing the right thing. it's the ones that aren't that are the problem. > Alex > -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Alexandru" == Alexandru Petrescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandru> Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> what exactly is the point of having a wep key shared by 2000 people.
Alexandru> I didn't mean it for data confidentiality; I meant it for
Alexandru> building the
Alexandru> wires W in WEP not for the P privacy. Basically one such W
Alexandru> for ietf and
Alexandru> one for aodv.
Why do you think that the helpful drivers that kept us coming up in IBSS
mode (proper name for new "ad-hoc" mode) won't use the keys as well?
Further, as was said, it does nothing against malicious rogue APs?
] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson,Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON|net architect[
] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
iQCVAwUBP71Qq4qHRg3pndX9AQH37QP+IdXat9qKozC8eq7sgvr0IIrKE1E+0je8
+VAByQ6CnWPj3g9dzuL/lj7A7x14S2Qvv0UF7bcv9qRCGxz1QrF1Egw41oNzv/Ro
gWh0FEjPkbc+4itFRqVzFmO5YxSY93v2QPHuYLZgzDPmq+98NaZxtNWo3LbJb5Dj
w7rQGUslLIc=
=e4MB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Alexandru" == Alexandru Petrescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandru> If my node has mode "managed" it will never attach to laptop
Alexandru> nodes
Alexandru> having same key same essid but mode ad-hoc.
No, that's isn't true.
It is true for:
"ad-hoc" = Lucent Ad-HOC mode (deprecated)
but not true for:
"ad-hoc" = 802.11 IBSS mode
In fact, the client can't tell the difference between IBSS and BSS.
Nor can Linux systems become IBSS systems without something like "hostap"
] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson,Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON|net architect[
] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
iQCVAwUBP71RVYqHRg3pndX9AQHgqAP/cMNuKQpXOyheLXHeg3RFJEa3usyT0ZyS
c7y2qKkdmuTwZEDIAkt1hc2l62G91+aFDzQbx/3OYQhqG9I+4yXz3e2UnMe4btGh
RMJQnxYrfv1EyrY4fGcsiCN2qRcuJ3KyNrkrRDRnfW0Fw/t9LsRALEfcsR/NGbog
TAEnhWQp5t4=
=qHj+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
Michael Richardson wrote: "Alexandru" == Alexandru Petrescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Alexandru> If my node has mode "managed" it will never attach to laptop Alexandru> nodes Alexandru> having same key same essid but mode ad-hoc. No, that's isn't true. It is true for: "ad-hoc" = Lucent Ad-HOC mode (deprecated) but not true for: "ad-hoc" = 802.11 IBSS mode Ok, it is true that that behaviour I mentioned above was with Lucent cards and Cisco (which I don't know what chipset). Also, I didn't know they call "ad-hoc" IBSS where I is for Infrastructure. So I guess I was wrong. So instead of forcing key+essid on the clients, would setting the AP's MAC address on the clients be a solution? In fact, the client can't tell the difference between IBSS and BSS. Nor can Linux systems become IBSS systems without something like "hostap" (hostap is one way, wireless bridging might be another way I think.) Alex
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
Michael Richardson wrote: Why do you think that the helpful drivers that kept us coming up in IBSS mode (proper name for new "ad-hoc" mode) won't use the keys as well? Ok, I didn't know that. Further, as was said, it does nothing against malicious rogue APs? Rogue malicious wily ruthless users skilled enough to configure hostap can rightfully be blamed; but not the novice user turning on a particular vendor's laptop. Alex
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
> > > In fact, the client can't tell the difference between IBSS and BSS. > > Nor can Linux systems become IBSS systems without something like "hostap" > > (hostap is one way, wireless bridging might be another way I think.) one could have multiple wireless cards in one machine acting as access points also, routing between discrete wireless networks. one could even use managed on one card and ad-hoc or hostap master mode on the other, to move bandwidth from one network to another all together, while appearing as a single client. cheers scott > > Alex > > > sleekfreak pirate broadcast world tour 2002-3 live from the pirate hideout http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
> From: Alexandru Petrescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > Rogue malicious wily ruthless users skilled enough to configure hostap > can rightfully be blamed; but not the novice user turning on > a particular vendor's laptop. That may be true in some situations, but should it be tolerated at the IETF? Why shouldn't such behavior be prima facie evidence of insufficent interest or experience in the business of the IETF to be allowed to participate? Even in other situations, that sort of behavior is the direct cause of most of the current security and spam problems on the Internet. If people would not run "user friendly" products that have designed and implemented such gross negligence that they execute with full system privileges any data that happens to come along, then there would be as many worms, virus, and spam amplifiers in general on the Internet as there are among UNIX based products. So a Modest Proposal: Discover which "user friendly" products were responsible for your troubles and ban everything from their maker(s) from the next meeting. Ban any person who breaks that ban at the next meeting from the following 3 meetings. (Cue cries about the business of the IETF including educating the masses, the complete unfairness of holding anyone accuntable for anything, and the need to be "open to innovation.") Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > > So instead of forcing key+essid on the clients, would setting the AP's > MAC address on the clients be a solution? not really unless you want to want to be associated with one of 30 aps for the entire conference... > > In fact, the client can't tell the difference between IBSS and BSS. > > Nor can Linux systems become IBSS systems without something like "hostap" > > (hostap is one way, wireless bridging might be another way I think.) > > Alex > > -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
Joel Jaeggli wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: So instead of forcing key+essid on the clients, would setting the AP's MAC address on the clients be a solution? not really unless you want to want to be associated with one of 30 aps for the entire conference... Right. So label the AP MAC address to the meeting room name then. Something like: "Conrad C - 00:D0:59:14:EE:55" ? Alex
Re: howto WLAN, several subnets
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 05:29:15PM +0100, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >>So instead of forcing key+essid on the clients, would setting the >>AP's MAC address on the clients be a solution? > >not really unless you want to want to be associated with one of 30 >aps for the entire conference... The problem I ran into was seeing a number of IBSSs, most of which seemed to be using unallocated mac addresses. Unfortunately I did not keep any notes of what I acutally did see. I wished I could have told my 4.8 FreeBSD system to only associate with one of a list of APs. I would have given it a list of all of the real APs and told it to only choose one of those. Wildcarding might have also been useful - I would have done (say) two mac address ranges the real APs were using & ignored the rest. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Partan)
Re: IETF57 Wien WLAN readiness?
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Pekka Savola wrote: > As a lot of folks are coming to IETF57 early, it would be interesting to > know when: > - the WLAN network is estimated to be operational > - when/whether it is possible to come to the conf. center > (i.e. as it isn't in a hotel, is it open for IETF'ers e.g. on Saturday > already) A portion/extension of the WLAN is installed in the lobby and 1st floor of the Crowne Plaza hotel. I've been using it since yesterday. -- Steve
Re: IETF57 Wien WLAN readiness?
BTW, there is free wireless access in the Museum Quarter. Good beer, good food, and good bits. Kurt At 10:23 AM 7/11/2003, Pekka Savola wrote: >Hi, > >As a lot of folks are coming to IETF57 early, it would be interesting to >know when: > - the WLAN network is estimated to be operational > - when/whether it is possible to come to the conf. center >(i.e. as it isn't in a hotel, is it open for IETF'ers e.g. on Saturday >already) > >-- >Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the >Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." >Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: IETF57 Wien WLAN readiness?
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Pekka Savola wrote: > As a lot of folks are coming to IETF57 early, it would be interesting to > know when: > - the WLAN network is estimated to be operational > - when/whether it is possible to come to the conf. center > (i.e. as it isn't in a hotel, is it open for IETF'ers e.g. on Saturday > already) I can personally attest that it seems to be working fine. (IPv6 too :-). -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
bogus 6to4 router at IETF WLAN
Someone's Windows box with lladdr fe80::204:23ff:fe7a:fb3e (2002:da25:e0b0::da25:e0b0) is advertising has gotten too smart, and is advertising the default route on the IETF59 WLAN. Stop immediately. (Perhaps misbehaving hosts should get MAC address blacklisted for a while..?)
report on the wlan difficulties in IETF?
Hello, I wonder if anyone has documented the situation of the IETF wireless network and analyzed the experienced difficulties? I'd be interested in looking at the causes of the difficulties. There's a lot of anecdotal information about the capabilities of the protocols and advice on what to do on this list. But it would be good to know what was the real cause of difficulties. Say, its pretty useless to authenticate beacons if the radios are simply swamped by too many nodes who think they are access points. Similarly, access control a la 802.1X does not help if the interferences are caused during or before access authentication has taken place. Or a correctly operating radio network is no good if all of its capacity is used by the legitimate, but infected, hosts for something non-productive. The bottom line is that finger pointing (staff, ieee, fcc, ourselves...), if useful at all, should come after we find out what happened. I suspect the IETF network is pretty the worst case scenario for current wireless LANs (or can someone point an even more demanding case?). But what we do today will be done tomorrow by regular users... --Jari
Re: bogus 6to4 router at IETF WLAN
The host has been jailed not to be able to associate with access points. choi On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 04:05:59AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > Someone's Windows box with lladdr fe80::204:23ff:fe7a:fb3e > (2002:da25:e0b0::da25:e0b0) is advertising has gotten too smart, and > is advertising the default route on the IETF59 WLAN. > > Stop immediately. > > (Perhaps misbehaving hosts should get MAC address blacklisted for a > while..?) >
RE: bogus 6to4 router at IETF WLAN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Pekka Savola wrote: > Someone's Windows box with lladdr fe80::204:23ff:fe7a:fb3e > (2002:da25:e0b0::da25:e0b0) is advertising has gotten too smart, and > is advertising the default route on the IETF59 WLAN. > > Stop immediately. > > (Perhaps misbehaving hosts should get MAC address blacklisted for a > while..?) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ipv6calc -i 2002:da25:e0b0:: No input type specified, try autodetection...found type: ipv6addr No output type specified, try autodetection...found type: ipv6addr Address type: unicast, 6to4, global-unicast Address type is 6to4 and included IPv4 address is: 218.37.224.176 IPv4 registry for 6to4 address: APNIC Address type has SLA: Interface identifier: ::: Interface identifier is probably manual set or based on a local EUI-64 identifier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ host 218.37.224.176 176.224.37.218.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer MIKE_NOTE.dhcp.ietf59.or.kr. ping it and arp it ;) Or run around screaming MIIIK and hope that there is no kid suddenly popping screaming Wazowwwskkiii back at you ;) Btw this is probably one of the subjects to attend to soon as I've seen it causing havoc quite a number of times: - - what is the 'easy' way of 'ignoring/deprecating' RA's without turning off all the RA's. Thus that one could mark the above as 'deprecated' and that it doesn't POP up in your routing tables/interface tables. Reply is prolly better to go to v6ops... Greets, Jeroen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen iQA/AwUBQEKhdCmqKFIzPnwjEQI6EgCgvvZSwZetn+9ONXDk9QbCkblDFL8AoKUn SzmTXnmlFRLnzImwnKuGCRyp =2U5H -END PGP SIGNATURE-
IP over Bluetooth, Cellular Handoff to WLAN
Folks, Where(what is the mail list) is the discussion group for IP over Bluetooth? I heard about the Pittsburgh BOF but I can't find a mail list. Anybody interested in chatting about macro-cellular to WLAN/PAN handovers? Thanks, Phil begin:vcard n:Neumiller;Phillip tel;pager:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:iDen 847-9804238 / CDMA 847-370-3899 tel;home:847-516-2009 tel;work:847-632-4118 (will change) x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Advanced Standards and Architecture;Personal Area Networking (PAN) adr:;;;Schaumburg;IL;60195;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Personal Networking Group (PNG) fn:Phil Neumiller end:vcard
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
Re: report on the wlan difficulties in IETF?
Just as a whimsical notion would it be possible to, ah, invite some of the 802.11* wireless committees to have a colocated meeting with the IETF at some point in the future? We could dangle the offer of "free" wireless networking, plus an offer for them to see what a real-life, large-scale deployment wireless is really like. Give them a chance for them to eat their own dog-food. It might be interesting to let the 802.11i folks see what life with unathenticated radio beacons is really like. :-) - Ted
Re: report on the wlan difficulties in IETF?
Jari, I will be working on a summary document that pulls together the technical items we witnessed at the meeting. --Brett On Wednesday 19 November 2003 08:15, Jari Arkko wrote: > Hello, > > I wonder if anyone has documented the situation of the IETF wireless > network and analyzed the experienced difficulties? I'd be interested > in looking at the causes of the difficulties. There's a lot of anecdotal > information about the capabilities of the protocols and advice on what > to do on this list. But it would be good to know what was the real cause > of difficulties. Say, its pretty useless to authenticate beacons if > the radios are simply swamped by too many nodes who think they are > access points. Similarly, access control a la 802.1X does not help > if the interferences are caused during or before access authentication > has taken place. Or a correctly operating radio network is no good if > all of its capacity is used by the legitimate, but infected, hosts > for something non-productive. The bottom line is that finger pointing > (staff, ieee, fcc, ourselves...), if useful at all, should come after we > find out what happened. > > I suspect the IETF network is pretty the worst case scenario for > current wireless LANs (or can someone point an even more demanding > case?). But what we do today will be done tomorrow by regular users... > > --Jari
Re: report on the wlan difficulties in IETF?
At 08:15 AM 11/19/2003, Jari Arkko wrote... >Say, its pretty useless to authenticate beacons if >the radios are simply swamped by too many nodes who think they are >access points This is not a technical issue. By taking advantage of unlicensed frequencies, 802.1a/b/g must not cause interference with licensed services, and must accept interference from other users, at least in the US. There really is no basis for any complaint of lack of service due to interference from any other WLAN or ISM device/user. If you desire a somewhat assured RF medium, explored using licensed frequencies, but then you'll have to live with other restraints. Mike
Re: report on the wlan difficulties in IETF?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Theodore Ts'o" writes: > >It might be interesting to let the 802.11i folks see what life with >unathenticated radio beacons is really like. :-) You mean invite them to SAAG and tell the obvious people that it's open season? Nasty --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
Re: report on the wlan difficulties in IETF?
Brett Thorson wrote: Jari, I will be working on a summary document that pulls together the technical items we witnessed at the meeting. Great, thanks! Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you and the rest of the folks who set up the networks for our meetings. The networks have worked extremely well. Yes, we had problems this time but I don't think it was your fault. If we find out why, it may even improve the protocols. Much of this is volunteer work, and we need to respect the folks who do it. So lets not complain about the network difficulties, lets work to resolve them. And volunteer to help next time... --Jari
RE: IP over Bluetooth, Cellular Handoff to WLAN
> Anybody interested in chatting about macro-cellular to WLAN/PAN handovers? I've been thinking of this quite a bit since probably jan. I'm really interested in the potential of dynamic routing over bluetooth, possibly without the handover... (Needless to say, AT&T Wireless, my current employer, is not taking sides). Your bluetooth (BT) computer to my BT palm pilot to that car's BT cdplayer to the next vehicle's BT ... - R/db ( [EMAIL PROTECTED], 425/580-7275 ) Architecture/Emerging Technologies Group The Moon is Waning Gibbous (96% of Full)
FWD: IP over Bluetooth, Cellular Handoff to WLAN
Phil, A proposal for IP over Bluetooth BOF is under preparation. We are in the process of soliciting approvals from the IETF area directors and the Bluetooth SIG. I'll post an announcement to the IETF mailing list as soon as all approvals are in place. -*- Pravin -*- === Pravin Bhagwat http://www.research.ibm.com/people/p/pravin > Folks, > > Where(what is the mail list) is the discussion group for IP over Bluetooth? > I heard about the Pittsburgh BOF but I can't find a mail list. > > Anybody interested in chatting about macro-cellular to WLAN/PAN handovers? > > Thanks, > > Phil
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
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)
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
Kill 6to4/site-locals from the IETF57 WLAN please.
Hi, Someone(s) in IETF57 WLAN appear to advertise site-locals and 6to4 addresses. Please stop. ]# /sbin/ip -6 a l 1: lo: mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue inet6 ::1/128 scope host 4: eth1: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100 inet6 fec0::4:260:1dff:fef0:2fa9/64 scope site dynamic valid_lft 172789sec preferred_lft 1789sec inet6 fe80::260:1dff:fef0:2fa9/64 scope link inet6 2002:51a0:da47:4:260:1dff:fef0:2fa9/64 scope global dynamic valid_lft 172789sec preferred_lft 1789sec inet6 2001:7f9:8400:10:260:1dff:fef0:2fa9/64 scope global dynamic valid_lft 2591989sec preferred_lft 604789sec -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
It would be nice if people did not run their WLAN cards in Ad Hoc mode. Here are MAC addresses of some cards that I currently see advertising various ad hoc networks. At least some of these were present also in yesterday's plenary. Network name MAC Netgear02-00-10-62-A3-6D IETF64 02-00-31-9B-69-47 Netgear02-00-61-76-D2-79 linksys02-0C-F1-EC-CF-9E TC_2 02-0E-35-03-D4-C4 IETF64 02-12-F0-00-33-FD wireless 02-27-97-94-65-56 If you don't know how to check your MAC address or how not to turn off ad-hoc capability, it may be better to turn off WLAN altogether. Thank you, --Pekka Nikander ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
This seems to be a recurring problem at every recent IETF, regardless of host and AP vendor. Maybe 802.11b is just not suitable for our STA density. Is there a way to VLAN these MAC addresses into the "get a clue" web page redirector? One would hope that none of these adhoc mode laptops have malicious MiM intent. Pekka Nikander wrote: It would be nice if people did not run their WLAN cards in Ad Hoc mode. Here are MAC addresses of some cards that I currently see advertising various ad hoc networks. At least some of these were present also in yesterday's plenary. Network name MAC Netgear02-00-10-62-A3-6D IETF64 02-00-31-9B-69-47 Netgear02-00-61-76-D2-79 linksys02-0C-F1-EC-CF-9E TC_2 02-0E-35-03-D4-C4 IETF64 02-12-F0-00-33-FD wireless 02-27-97-94-65-56 If you don't know how to check your MAC address or how not to turn off ad-hoc capability, it may be better to turn off WLAN altogether. Thank you, --Pekka Nikander ___ 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: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: This seems to be a recurring problem at every recent IETF, regardless of host and AP vendor. Maybe 802.11b is just not suitable for our STA density. Is there a way to VLAN these MAC addresses into the "get a clue" web page redirector? You can,(we've done it in the past) but since they're not actually connected to the network when they're misbehaving it doesn't buy you much until they fix their card, sleep their laptop, or reboot. Having done some testing with various Operating systems wireless implmentations, I think we can say with some degree of confidence the instigating hosts are generally windows 2000 machines, it could be time to upgrade because the winxp ndis wireless drivers won't do this without some coaxing. Or, I'd be happy to hand out knoppix cd's to anyone who wants one. One would hope that none of these adhoc mode laptops have malicious MiM intent. It's seems unlikely that they are even aware. More than likely however some of the people experiencing intermittent connectivty issues are the source of a number of the problem hosts. Good wireless hygiene starts with end users. Pekka Nikander wrote: It would be nice if people did not run their WLAN cards in Ad Hoc mode. Here are MAC addresses of some cards that I currently see advertising various ad hoc networks. At least some of these were present also in yesterday's plenary. Network name MAC Netgear02-00-10-62-A3-6D IETF64 02-00-31-9B-69-47 Netgear02-00-61-76-D2-79 linksys02-0C-F1-EC-CF-9E TC_2 02-0E-35-03-D4-C4 IETF64 02-12-F0-00-33-FD wireless 02-27-97-94-65-56 If you don't know how to check your MAC address or how not to turn off ad-hoc capability, it may be better to turn off WLAN altogether. Thank you, --Pekka Nikander ___ 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 -- -- 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: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
FYI, At the plenary last night the NOC team noticed 107 adhoc networks on 802.11b. See attachment for the names & MACs. Cheers, Glenn. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pekka Nikander Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:06 PM To: IETF Discussion Subject: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode It would be nice if people did not run their WLAN cards in Ad Hoc mode. Here are MAC addresses of some cards that I currently see advertising various ad hoc networks. At least some of these were present also in yesterday's plenary. Network name MAC Netgear02-00-10-62-A3-6D IETF64 02-00-31-9B-69-47 Netgear02-00-61-76-D2-79 linksys02-0C-F1-EC-CF-9E TC_2 02-0E-35-03-D4-C4 IETF64 02-12-F0-00-33-FD wireless 02-27-97-94-65-56 If you don't know how to check your MAC address or how not to turn off ad-hoc capability, it may be better to turn off WLAN altogether. Thank you, --Pekka Nikander ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ( point ) ( 00:0b:6b:20:33:a6 ) ( Sarolahti ) ( 02:f8:f9:f4:09:b6 ) ( Sarolahti ) ( 02:78:22:74:d2:36 ) ( Sarolahti ) ( 02:33:67:3f:97:7d ) ( CodeLab Wi-Fi ) ( 02:12:f0:00:04:c3 ) ( authdemo )( 02:13:ce:2c:75:f9 ) ( AMBASSADOR-S1 ) ( 96:72:c8:97:a1:7b ) ( opm08 ) ( 02:04:23:85:35:56 ) ( Wayport_Access ) ( 02:04:23:de:70:2b ) ( CodeLab Wi-Fi ) ( 02:12:f0:00:07:8a ) ( nsg-ap00 )( 02:f1:06:77:7a:37 ) ( linksys ) ( 02:12:f0:00:07:84 ) ( opm08 ) ( 02:04:23:85:d8:7d ) ( forbin ) ( 00:0d:93:ee:d9:bf ) ( CodeLab Wi-Fi ) ( 02:12:f0:00:09:e4 ) ( linksys ) ( 02:12:f0:00:09:ed ) ( authdemo )( 02:11:be:97:c2:d7 ) ( Sarolahti ) ( 02:5c:5d:50:ad:12 ) ( Sarolahti ) ( 02:2d:12:21:e2:63 ) ( authdemo )( 02:13:ce:2c:7e:35 ) ( Sarolahti ) ( 02:87:68:8b:98:c9 ) ( Sarolahti ) ( 02:5c:fa:50:0a:12 ) ( authdemo )( 02:6d:b5:eb:c9:ab ) ( authdemo )( 02:6f:c3:e9:bf:a9 ) ( authdemo )( 02:1a:94:9c:e8:dc ) ( authdemo )( 02:63:75:e5:09:a5 ) ( authdemo )( 02:77:83:f1:ff:b1 ) ( IETF64 ) ( 02:0e:35:00:df:c4 ) ( authdemo )( 02:e3:87:65:fb:25 ) ( opm08 ) ( 02:04:23:85:da:4d ) ( authdemo )( 02:60:a2:e6:de:a6 ) ( CodeLab Wi-Fi ) ( 02:12:f0:00:14:52 ) ( authdemo )( 02:fe:7b:78:07:38 ) ( linksys ) ( 02:12:f0:00:15:c3 ) ( CodeLab Wi-Fi ) ( 02:12:f0:00:15:ca ) ( authdemo )( 02:2a:43:ac:3f:ec ) ( nsg-ap00 )( 02:e9:79:6f:05:2f ) ( linksys ) ( 02:12:f0:00:16:fb ) ( IETF64 ) ( 7e:0a:aa:60:67:d5 ) ( linksys ) ( 02:12:f0:00:19:a2 ) ( cfvdw07-44930 ) ( 02:12:f0:00:00:8f ) ( linksys ) ( 02:12:f0:00:1d:56 ) ( opm08 ) ( 02:04:23:85:e1:98 ) ( linksys ) ( 02:12:f0:00:1f:fc ) ( IETF64 ) ( 66:fe:b4:cc:0a:2d ) ( opm08 ) ( 02:04:23:85:a2:7a ) ( TC_2 )( 02:0e:35:00:3a:c7 ) ( TC_2 )( 02:0e:35:00:3a:d6 ) ( linksys ) ( 02:12:f0:00:22:62 ) ( authdemo )( 32:e7:51:46:99:76 ) ( IETF64 ) ( 0a:60:73:02:90:b1 ) ( cfvdw07-44930 ) ( 02:12:f0:00:07:ce ) ( authdemo )( aa:f1:6e:46:99:76 ) ( TEST )( aa:f9:6e:46:99:76 ) ( authdemo )( 5a:01:6f:46:99:76 ) ( cfvdw07-44930 ) ( 02:12:f0:00:09:37 ) ( authdemo )( 46:26:6c:46:99:76 ) ( linksys ) ( 02:12:f0:00:25:4f ) ( linksys ) ( de:dd:89:92:d9:f4 ) ( authdemo )( 72:1c:68:46:99:76 ) ( TEST )( 1e:65:68:46:99:76 ) ( hpsetup ) ( 7e:02:7c:02:05:02 ) ( authdemo )( fe:62:68:46:99:76 ) ( authdemo )( 32:04:69:46:99:76 ) ( hpsetup ) ( 42:01:4f:00:d3:03 ) ( authdemo )( 4a:bd:69:46:99:76 ) ( TEST )( 66:fa:69:46:99:76 ) ( authdemo )( 36:02:66:46:99:76 ) ( hpsetup ) ( 12:01:f4:01:65:03 ) ( linksys ) ( 02:12:f0:00:2d:d2 ) ( cfvdw07-44930 ) ( 02:12:f0:00:15:ba ) ( linksys ) ( 02:12:f0:00:34:76 ) ( hpsetup ) ( 86:02:9f:01:3a:03 ) ( authdemo )( 0e:70:78:46:99:76 ) ( hpsetup ) ( 52:00:36:02:c7:00 ) ( TEST )( 76:12:76:46:99:76 ) ( authdemo )( 16:1a:76:46:99:76 ) ( cfvdw07-44930 ) ( 02:12:f0:00:20:70 ) ( TEST )( 5a:fb:76:46:99:76 ) ( authdemo )( 2a:03:77:46:99:76 ) ( TEST )( 16:28:74:46:99:76 ) ( authdemo )( 16:30:74:46:99:76 ) ( hpsetup ) ( fa:02:57:03:2a:00 ) ( hpsetup ) ( ee:01:17:03:5a:02 ) ( cfvdw07-44930 ) ( 02:12:f0:00:27:34 ) ( TEST )( 2a:d2:71:46:99:76 ) ( authdemo )( ea:db:71:46:99:76 ) ( linksys ) ( 02:12:f0:00:44:79 ) ( nak ) ( 00:0a:95:f4:ee:b8 ) ( linksys ) ( 02:12:f0:00:45:d6 ) ( authdemo )( 02:12:f0:00:47:e5 ) ( authdemo )( 02:12:f0:00:48:d5 ) ( IETF64 ) ( 44:44:44:44:44:44 ) ( IETF64 ) ( 02:20:24:77:5d:37 ) ( AMBASSADOR-S1 ) ( 5e:fd:37:97:a1:7b ) ( authdemo )( 02:12:f0:00:57:3e ) ( authdemo )( c6:4c:15:46:99:76 ) ( authdemo )( aa:53:2f:46:99:
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
I think we should be very strict on this. All this people should get filtered until they go to the NOC and make sure to get trained about how to avoid ad-hoc ! Regards, Jordi > De: Glenn Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:42:07 -0500 > Para: IETF Discussion > Conversación: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode > Asunto: RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode > > FYI, > > At the plenary last night the NOC team noticed 107 adhoc networks on > 802.11b. See attachment for the names & MACs. > > Cheers, > Glenn. > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Pekka Nikander > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:06 PM > To: IETF Discussion > Subject: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode > > It would be nice if people did not run their WLAN cards in Ad Hoc mode. > > Here are MAC addresses of some cards that I currently see advertising > various ad hoc networks. At least some of these were present also in > yesterday's plenary. > > Network name MAC > > Netgear02-00-10-62-A3-6D > IETF64 02-00-31-9B-69-47 > Netgear02-00-61-76-D2-79 > linksys02-0C-F1-EC-CF-9E > TC_2 02-0E-35-03-D4-C4 > IETF64 02-12-F0-00-33-FD > wireless 02-27-97-94-65-56 > > If you don't know how to check your MAC address or how not to turn off > ad-hoc capability, it may be better to turn off WLAN altogether. > > Thank you, > > --Pekka Nikander > > > ___ > 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 The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
> I think we should be very strict on this. All this people should get > filtered until they go to the NOC and make sure to get trained about how > to avoid ad-hoc ! Unlicensed spectrum, like the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands used by Wi-Fi, can be used by anybody. If I remember correctly, there was an FCC ruling on a similar case, where an airport wanted to get airlines to stop using their own Wi-Fi devices, uncoordinated with the airport. The FCC essentially ruled that as it is an open band, landlords and other facility managers can't prevent people from using the waveband. I did not check the laws of Canada, but in the US at least the IETF cannot force people to stop using ad hoc. If two participants want to set up an ad hoc network and exchange data between themselves, there is hardly anything the NOC can say. They could also use Bluetooth, which operates in the same band, and again they would not be breaking any regulation. -- Christian Huitema ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Christian, This is hardly a matter of FCC regulations or other laws, but rather about what we can expect from cooperating IETF attendees. Smoking can be "outlawed" in groups indepently of any local laws that may or may not apply. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Christian Huitema wrote: > > I think we should be very strict on this. All this people should get > > filtered until they go to the NOC and make sure to get trained about > how > > to avoid ad-hoc ! > > Unlicensed spectrum, like the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands used by Wi-Fi, can > be used by anybody. If I remember correctly, there was an FCC ruling on > a similar case, where an airport wanted to get airlines to stop using > their own Wi-Fi devices, uncoordinated with the airport. The FCC > essentially ruled that as it is an open band, landlords and other > facility managers can't prevent people from using the waveband. I did > not check the laws of Canada, but in the US at least the IETF cannot > force people to stop using ad hoc. If two participants want to set up an > ad hoc network and exchange data between themselves, there is hardly > anything the NOC can say. They could also use Bluetooth, which operates > in the same band, and again they would not be breaking any regulation. > > -- Christian Huitema > > ___ > 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: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
It is hard to be very strict at an IETF meeting. We first started running Penalty Boxes at one of the Minneapolis IETF meetings. Why did we do it? Because we had time. We got the network working reasonably well and could dedicate our time to ... "Fighting Evil". So we setup the penalty box, and we put people in there. We found a mean MAC addr, set it all up, and then came the question.. Do you really want to do this? That was a hard call to make honestly. There were a lot of smart people in the NOC (There always are). Even with all that intelligence, you could feel the tension in the room as we put 'em in there. Why? Well we have enough people bashing the NOC crew all the time. Now we were purposefully messing with people. How would you like to be the person that accidentally put the IETF-Chair in the penalty box? So we put quite a few people in there, and we caught at least one (Thanks Joel). Was the guy actually doing malicious things. We think so. Did he act like he didn't know what was going on? Yep. Did he unplug his computer as soon as we found him, yep. It was all very odd. Somewhat rewarding, but still weird. Ok, let's sum this up. 1. The people who are running in ad-hoc mode, if you look at a few of those nets, you will see multiple MAC addresses for the same network. Look closer and some of the OUI's look downright spooky. You could be chasing them for quite some time. 2. As someone else pointed out, they would only feel the effects of your efforts if they connect back to the IETF network. Do you think they will? 3. One of the ways we caught the person in Minneapolis was because of the goo coming out of their WLAN card (scanning), we shut them off, and then saw the same goo coming out of their wired port. Doesn't apply to well to wireless ad-hoc. I bet you can catch some of the people, but in the end it is probably a pretty low priority compared with tuning all your APs so the wireless coverage at the plenary doesn't crash into itself. I think training would be great. The only problem is that either they are doing it to be mean, or they have no idea they are doing it in the first place and skim over the documentation asking them to check their config as if it were a note well. I'm all for the Penalty Box, I thought it was cool. But looking at that list of Ad-HOC nets and MAC addresses. Wow, that's a lot! Best of luck to the NOC team, and thanks to UofO for the MP3 streams. --Brett > I think we should be very strict on this. All this people should get filtered until they go to the NOC and make sure to get trained about how to > avoid ad-hoc ! > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > >> De: Glenn Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Fecha: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:42:07 -0500 >> Para: IETF Discussion >> Conversación: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode >> Asunto: RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode >> FYI, >> At the plenary last night the NOC team noticed 107 adhoc networks on 802.11b. See attachment for the names & MACs. >> Cheers, >> Glenn. >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pekka Nikander >> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:06 PM >> To: IETF Discussion >> Subject: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode It would be nice if people did not run their WLAN cards in Ad Hoc mode. Here are MAC addresses of some cards that I currently see advertising various ad hoc networks. At least some of these were present also in yesterday's plenary. >> Network name MAC >> Netgear02-00-10-62-A3-6D >> IETF64 02-00-31-9B-69-47 >> Netgear02-00-61-76-D2-79 >> linksys02-0C-F1-EC-CF-9E >> TC_2 02-0E-35-03-D4-C4 >> IETF64 02-12-F0-00-33-FD >> wireless 02-27-97-94-65-56 >> If you don't know how to check your MAC address or how not to turn off ad-hoc capability, it may be better to turn off WLAN altogether. Thank you, >> --Pekka Nikander >> ___ >> 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 > > > > > > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit > Information available at: > http://www.ipv6-es.com > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) nam
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Just to be clear - is the problem "ad hoc mode" or "ad hoc mode with SSID ietf"? The last time we were in Minneapolis, Dean Willis noticed that the wireless projector controls in the conference rooms used 802.11b ad hoc ... in an increasingly IP-deviced world, if the problem is "ad hoc mode", we are going to die at an increasing rate over time. Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
The problem stems (I hope) from people not knowing that they have their PC in Ad-Hoc mode when they specify that they want to connect to network "ietf64". So the answer should be that "ad hoc mode with SSID = ietf". However, people wanting to have a private ad hoc network ought to look at the frequencies being used by local base-stations so that their signals do not interfere with people using the "infrastructure" mode. -- Eric --> -Original Message- --> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins --> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:13 PM --> To: ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN --> in ad hoc mode --> --> Just to be clear - is the problem "ad hoc mode" or "ad hoc --> mode with SSID ietf"? --> --> The last time we were in Minneapolis, Dean Willis noticed --> that the wireless projector controls in the conference --> rooms used 802.11b ad hoc ... in an increasingly IP-deviced --> world, if the problem is "ad hoc mode", we are going to die --> at an increasing rate over time. --> --> Spencer --> --> --> ___ --> 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: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
On Nov 10 2005, at 14:34 Uhr, Gray, Eric wrote: people wanting to have a private ad hoc network ought to look at the frequencies being used by local base-stations so that their signals do not interfere with people using the "infrastructure" mode. Paradoxically, they have to use *the same* frequencies so that their signals do not interfere. Gruesse, Carsten ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote: Just to be clear - is the problem "ad hoc mode" or "ad hoc mode with SSID ietf"? The problem basically works out to something like this... A host with the magic settings, or defaults comes up, for whatever reason it can't associate with an accesspoint, so it says hey: I'll flop over to bss mode and become an adhoc node. Now another host comes along as says, hey the strongest network I see is this adhoc network, so I'll join that. So you have a bunch of hosts participating in this bss network, and because they're not being managed by an ibss node (an ap) their beacons and any traffic they send clobber traffic from the ap's around them making the situation worse. Now, the ibss ap's have their power output turned down so that they don't clobber each other, because a certain ap density is needed support all the users on this network. So if the ap is transmitting at 15mw and you have a laptop with 100mw card which One wins? The problem with a node that's decided to become adhoc is when would it decide to change back? It won't. Probably when your fiddle with your card settings, reset the card, sleep the laptop or reboot, that will be enough. Certain implentations, eg macosX 10.1 would switch to an adhoc network with the same ssid as the mananged netowrk even if they were configured only to connect to managed networks. So, good hygiene is: Configure your laptop to stick to the ssid ietf64 Configure you card to only operate in managed, ibss or accesspoint networks. If you have a card with selectable output power (like an old cisco, prism 2, or atheros) pick something below 100mw like 15mw or or 30mw. if you have a card with a density setting like and old lucent orinoco card, set it to high. if you have 802.11a support use it. The last time we were in Minneapolis, Dean Willis noticed that the wireless projector controls in the conference rooms used 802.11b ad hoc ... in an increasingly IP-deviced world, if the problem is "ad hoc mode", we are going to die at an increasing rate over time. The number of devices in your pocket and in the environment with radios does indeed increase over time. Couple that with the challenges of working in a new space, with days or hours of setup time, no decent simulation tools for a room with 100 tons of meat and 800 radio's in it. and host implementations of widely varying quality, and you have a challenging dynamic environment that should make every host scared. Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- 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: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Can be the summary of this then that the effort will be more worthy to have lots of instructions in every meeting room for "how to get the IETF network working" ? Regards, Jordi > De: Brett Thorson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:59:59 -0500 (EST) > Para: "ietf@ietf.org" > Asunto: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode > > It is hard to be very strict at an IETF meeting. We first started running > Penalty Boxes at one of the Minneapolis IETF meetings. Why did we do it? > Because we had time. We got the network working reasonably well and could > dedicate our time to ... "Fighting Evil". > > So we setup the penalty box, and we put people in there. We found a mean > MAC addr, set it all up, and then came the question.. Do you really want > to do this? That was a hard call to make honestly. There were a lot of > smart people in the NOC (There always are). Even with all that > intelligence, you could feel the tension in the room as we put 'em in > there. > > Why? Well we have enough people bashing the NOC crew all the time. Now > we were purposefully messing with people. How would you like to be the > person that accidentally put the IETF-Chair in the penalty box? > > So we put quite a few people in there, and we caught at least one (Thanks > Joel). Was the guy actually doing malicious things. We think so. Did he > act like he didn't know what was going on? Yep. Did he unplug his > computer as soon as we found him, yep. It was all very odd. Somewhat > rewarding, but still weird. > > Ok, let's sum this up. > > 1. The people who are running in ad-hoc mode, if you look at a few of > those nets, you will see multiple MAC addresses for the same network. > Look closer and some of the OUI's look downright spooky. You could be > chasing them for quite some time. > > 2. As someone else pointed out, they would only feel the effects of your > efforts if they connect back to the IETF network. Do you think they will? > > 3. One of the ways we caught the person in Minneapolis was because of the > goo coming out of their WLAN card (scanning), we shut them off, and then > saw the same goo coming out of their wired port. Doesn't apply to well to > wireless ad-hoc. > > I bet you can catch some of the people, but in the end it is probably a > pretty low priority compared with tuning all your APs so the wireless > coverage at the plenary doesn't crash into itself. > > I think training would be great. The only problem is that either they are > doing it to be mean, or they have no idea they are doing it in the first > place and skim over the documentation asking them to check their config as > if it were a note well. I'm all for the Penalty Box, I thought it was > cool. But looking at that list of Ad-HOC nets and MAC addresses. Wow, > that's a lot! > > Best of luck to the NOC team, and thanks to UofO for the MP3 streams. > > --Brett > >> I think we should be very strict on this. All this people should get > filtered until they go to the NOC and make sure to get trained about how > to >> avoid ad-hoc ! >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> >> >> >> >>> De: Glenn Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Fecha: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:42:07 -0500 >>> Para: IETF Discussion >>> Conversación: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc > mode >>> Asunto: RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode >>> FYI, >>> At the plenary last night the NOC team noticed 107 adhoc networks on > 802.11b. See attachment for the names & MACs. >>> Cheers, >>> Glenn. >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Pekka Nikander >>> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:06 PM >>> To: IETF Discussion >>> Subject: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode > It would be nice if people did not run their WLAN cards in Ad Hoc mode. > Here are MAC addresses of some cards that I currently see advertising > various ad hoc networks. At least some of these were present also in > yesterday's plenary. >>> Network name MAC >>> Netgear02-00-10-62-A3-6D >>> IETF64 02-00-31-9B-69-47 >>> Netgear02-00-61-76-D2-79 >>> linksys02-0C-F1-EC-CF-9E >>> TC_2 02-0E-35-03-D4-C4 >>> IETF64 02-12-F0-00-33-FD >>> wireless 02-27-
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
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. Regards Marshall Eubanks On Nov 10, 2005, at 6:22 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, John Loughney wrote: Do you have a sense if it is Win 2000 or if it is related to any specific wlan driver software? I'd think a basic list of cards / sw that often misbehave would be a good thing. That way, when we see a few adhoc devices in a meeting, the chairs could more specifically tell people running OS X / card Y to check their devices. The survey we did is about two years old now, but at the time a fair number of the win2k drivers would produce this behavior. Basically to much default auto-configuration. having the wireless card be mananged by windows (winxp) went a long way towards solving this issue for windows machines. It is still possible to hose yourself if you try. It think it would be a fairly serious mistake to add to the workload of the working-group chairs by making them front-line tech support for the wireless network. The current exhortation towards checking for your laptop being in adhoc mode is well meaning, but a lot like throwing salt over the shoulder. If we want to characterize certain users or applications as mission critical providing additional wired ports in meeting rooms to support them seems reasonable. Including large numbers of wired ports seems like madness however. John -- -- 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
A variant of things I've suggested before for other purposes: Put up a screen in the hallway with continuous display of the ad-hoc mode MACs detected at any time. Lets people check their own MACs in real time. --On 10. november 2005 14:42 -0500 Glenn Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FYI, At the plenary last night the NOC team noticed 107 adhoc networks on 802.11b. See attachment for the names & MACs. pgpw40dbNfbrv.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
On 11/10/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Put up a screen in the hallway with continuous display of the ad-hoc mode > MACs detected at any time. > > Lets people check their own MACs in real time. If people don't know how to turn off ad-hoc mode, will they know how to check their MAC address against the list? Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Let's just forget about this wireless thing and put switches next to the power strips on the floor. We're stringing power through the rooms anyway. (I'm actually half serious, after hours without any connectivity.) On second thought - I'll just book the terminal room for the DCCP meeting next time. Lars -- Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
I think that what we should do is to send the IEEE 801.b/g group a polite letter pointing out that if our people here at the IETF cannot figure this stuff out then their less technically astute customers might be having some trouble as well. I think that the cause of this 'misconfiguration' is simply people trying to connect to the network, getting it wrong, twiddling some stuff at random, trying again and so on. I don't think you are going to stop that. Designers should read Donald Norman's 'The Design of Everyday Things'. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Phillip Hallam-Baker writes... > I think that what we should do is to send the IEEE 801.b/g group a > polite letter pointing out that if our people here at the IETF cannot > figure this stuff out then their less technically astute customers might > be having some trouble as well. I don't believe this is an 802.11 problem. That group standardizes PHY and MAC (up to Layer 2) protocols. The usability problems with 802.11 networks are in the device drivers, operating systems and configuration applications. It would be more effective to send mail to Microsoft, Apple, et. al. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
At 11:44 -0500 11/11/05, Nelson, David wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker writes...
I think that what we should do is to send the IEEE 801.b/g group a
polite letter pointing out that if our people here at the IETF cannot
figure this stuff out then their less technically astute customers
might
be having some trouble as well.
I don't believe this is an 802.11 problem. That group standardizes PHY
and MAC (up to Layer 2) protocols. The usability problems with 802.11
networks are in the device drivers, operating systems and configuration
applications. It would be more effective to send mail to Microsoft,
Apple, et. al.
I disagree, I think. IETF, MPEG, large corporate conferences and so
on, they all have trouble running large 802.11 networks. They all
can run large wired networks. The difference is that even at
meetings run by and attended by supposed network experts, it's hard
hard hard to get an 802.11 network to run well. That is not right.
I do believe that there are (were) some operating systems that
switched to ad-hoc mode and made a network if it couldn't find the
network you asked to join. (I don't think it was OS X.) That's a
mistake. A big big mistake.
Guidelines on (a) network naming and (b) frequency selection from the
802.11 group would be useful. For example, maybe you need to do
something to claim to be an 'expert' to create an ad-hoc with a
'plain' name; otherwise your ad-hoc network would be (for example)
prefixed by "*" or something. And maybe OS's could diagnose
frequency problems ("there are several base stations in here all on
channel XX and they are interfering with each other" or whatever).
Dammit, a FAQ on would be a good
start.
I've been at a meeting where a respected network equipment provider
provided the network. Because the base stations had an artificial
limit of 10 IP addresses for their NAT/DHCP, he setup 3 of them in
the room, next to each other, on the same channel and SSID. Result
-- they are all in very low-power mode, interfering like hell, and
the users if they get a signal can't choose from which box and so it
doesn't actually spread the load.
Finally, it's clear that at least some base stations get hopelessly
confused (sometimes I have even resorted to the technical term
"wedged") when there is an ad-hoc in range with the same SSID. Some
testing and robustness guidelines from the 802.11 group would also
help.
--
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Dave Singer writes... > Some testing and robustness guidelines from the 802.11 group > would also help. While you may believe that IEEE 802.11 should provide these services, I will note that the Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) currently fills that gap. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Guidelines would be nice, but wouldn't help here: The evidence seems to identify systems as the culprits with operating systems that have not been upgraded in the last half-decade. Those won't benefit from new information. (I don't want to start discussion about the economic realities that make people run ancient operating systems, this is just about injecting reality.) Gruesse, Carsten ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Maybe we can at least try to validate this theory by asking at the plenary as to which operating system people are running. Carsten Bormann wrote: Guidelines would be nice, but wouldn't help here: The evidence seems to identify systems as the culprits with operating systems that have not been upgraded in the last half-decade. Those won't benefit from new information. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
I think we can make a pretty good guess as to the list, although maybe not the relative positions. I think that from now on registration packets should include a sheet about how to tell if you are running an ad hoc network for a variety of OS flavors, and have sent a detailed suggestion to that effect to the IAOC. There should be sufficient resources in the IETF community to do this for even the fairly old flavors; a simple note at the bottom saying that if your OS is not included, email [EMAIL PROTECTED], should catch any missed the first time around. Regards Marshall Eubanks On Nov 11, 2005, at 1:27 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: Maybe we can at least try to validate this theory by asking at the plenary as to which operating system people are running. Carsten Bormann wrote: Guidelines would be nice, but wouldn't help here: The evidence seems to identify systems as the culprits with operating systems that have not been upgraded in the last half- decade. Those won't benefit from new information. ___ 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: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
In 19 days, this very hotel and meeting rooms will be filled with ICANN attendees, most of whom are not "technical" in our sense of the word. That should be lots of fun :-) I am sure they could use some volunteers if you feel like coming back. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
(resending this from my subscribed address... duh..) On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Bill Fenner wrote: > If people don't know how to turn off ad-hoc mode, will they know how > to check their MAC address against the list? Maybe... I know very well how to check my MAC in my primary OS (Linux) and (I think) in my secondary OS (Win2k). But setting the ad-hoc mode is buried in a config file in linux, and I still don't know how to check in Win2k (no, I haven't been running Win2k, and I can see it says "managed" in Linux iwconfig so that's OK...) Might it be possible to run a local webserver that can check its ARP table against the list - it could even offer customized hints how to fix the problem. Assuming all the APs are on the same network and there's no routing at that level. (Of course if you can't get on you won't see the list, but if it was also a useful place to find updated agendas, wireless performance stats etc. so that people would go there, in addition to running the "display in the foyer", they might see that they had been a problem earlier). -- Andrew Daviel, TRIUMF, Canada Tel. +1 (604) 222-7376 (Pacific Time) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Andrew Daviel wrote: (resending this from my subscribed address... duh..) On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Bill Fenner wrote: If people don't know how to turn off ad-hoc mode, will they know how to check their MAC address against the list? Maybe... I know very well how to check my MAC in my primary OS (Linux) and (I think) in my secondary OS (Win2k). But setting the ad-hoc mode is buried in a config file in linux, and I still don't know how to check in Win2k (no, I haven't been running Win2k, and I can see it says "managed" in Linux iwconfig so that's OK...) Might it be possible to run a local webserver that can check its ARP table against the list - it could even offer customized hints how to fix the problem. Assuming all the APs are on the same network and there's no routing at that level. (Of course if you can't get on you won't see the list, but if it was also a useful place to find updated agendas, wireless performance stats etc. so that people would go there, in addition to running the "display in the foyer", they might see that they had been a problem earlier). IIRC, MS didn't disable the Messenger service by default until Windows XP. So if the majority of the problem systems are running 2k, you could have an automated box that looked for ad-hoc networks and did a "net send" to the perpetrator explaining the problem. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
If the architecture profession carried on the way engineers do the world would be full of buildings with no interior walls or floors. You sound like a 1950s British trades unionist calling his men out on strike over demarcation. > -Original Message- > From: Nelson, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 11:45 AM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN > in ad hoc mode > > Phillip Hallam-Baker writes... > > > I think that what we should do is to send the IEEE 801.b/g group a > > polite letter pointing out that if our people here at the > IETF cannot > > figure this stuff out then their less technically astute customers > might > > be having some trouble as well. > > I don't believe this is an 802.11 problem. That group > standardizes PHY and MAC (up to Layer 2) protocols. The > usability problems with 802.11 networks are in the device > drivers, operating systems and configuration applications. > It would be more effective to send mail to Microsoft, Apple, et. al. > > > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Phillip Hallam-Baker writes... > You sound like a 1950s British trades unionist calling his men out on > strike over demarcation. Insult me, if it makes you feel better. I stand by my advice. This is a product usability problem, not a technical shortcoming of the underlying standards. My observation was as to the most effective way to raise the issue. IEEE 802 doesn't do product testing, but the Wi-Fi Alliance does. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
On 11 nov 2005, at 13.56, Ole Jacobsen wrote: In 19 days, this very hotel and meeting rooms will be filled with ICANN attendees, most of whom are not "technical" in our sense of the word. That should be lots of fun :-) It will be interesting to see if ICANN has as much trouble, or IEEE during the intermediate week. I have heard an interesting bit of anecdotal evidence that indicates the situation is worse at IETF meetings then at other meetings. I questioned it, but who knows? a. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:15 AM > To: Ole Jacobsen > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN > in ad hoc mode > > > > On 11 nov 2005, at 13.56, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > > > In 19 days, this very hotel and meeting rooms will be filled with > > ICANN attendees, most of whom are not "technical" in our > sense of the > > word. That should be lots of fun :-) > > It will be interesting to see if ICANN has as much trouble, > or IEEE during the intermediate week. > > I have heard an interesting bit of anecdotal evidence that > indicates the situation is worse at IETF meetings then at > other meetings. I questioned it, but who knows? > > a. > I know. I am attending both the IEEE 802 Plenary meetings and the IETF meetings for many years. I can witness first hand that the situation is much worse at the IETF meetings than at the IEEE ones. Practically, the network is perfect at most IEEE meetings. True, I believe that they are outsourcing the network deployment and its maintenance during the meeting. As I will be attending the IEEE 802 meeting next week (in Vancouver, but at a different hotel) I will be able to report by the end of the week how it was. Anyway, it hardly can be worse than at the IETF meeting. During this whole IETF week I could almost never connect during the meetings. I had to wait for the lunch break when everybody was away, or to go to my room (at the 7th floor in the tower) to be able to connect to the IETF wireless network. Regards, Dan ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 06:45:59 +0200 "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Dan; You should see if you can find out what it costs the IEEE 802 to outsource the wireless LAN, both total and per person. Regards; Marshall Eubanks > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:15 AM > > To: Ole Jacobsen > > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN > > in ad hoc mode > > > > > > > > On 11 nov 2005, at 13.56, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > > > > > In 19 days, this very hotel and meeting rooms will be filled with > > > ICANN attendees, most of whom are not "technical" in our > > sense of the > > > word. That should be lots of fun :-) > > > > It will be interesting to see if ICANN has as much trouble, > > or IEEE during the intermediate week. > > > > I have heard an interesting bit of anecdotal evidence that > > indicates the situation is worse at IETF meetings then at > > other meetings. I questioned it, but who knows? > > > > a. > > > > I know. I am attending both the IEEE 802 Plenary meetings and the IETF > meetings for many years. I can witness first hand that the situation is > much worse at the IETF meetings than at the IEEE ones. Practically, the > network is perfect at most IEEE meetings. True, I believe that they are > outsourcing the network deployment and its maintenance during the > meeting. > > As I will be attending the IEEE 802 meeting next week (in Vancouver, but > at a different hotel) I will be able to report by the end of the week > how it was. Anyway, it hardly can be worse than at the IETF meeting. > During this whole IETF week I could almost never connect during the > meetings. I had to wait for the lunch break when everybody was away, or > to go to my room (at the 7th floor in the tower) to be able to connect > to the IETF wireless network. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > > > ___ > 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: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
I can ask, but I doubt that this information is available. What I know is that the registration fee for the IEEE 802 Plenary meeting is considerably lower than the one at the IETF (300 USD vs. 500 USD). Regards, Dan > -Original Message- > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:11 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Avri Doria; Ole Jacobsen > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN > in ad hoc mode > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 06:45:59 +0200 > "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Dan; > > You should see if you can find out what it costs the IEEE 802 > to outsource the wireless LAN, both total and per person. > > Regards; > Marshall Eubanks > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > > Of Avri Doria > > > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:15 AM > > > To: Ole Jacobsen > > > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad > > > hoc mode > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 nov 2005, at 13.56, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > > > > > > > In 19 days, this very hotel and meeting rooms will be > filled with > > > > ICANN attendees, most of whom are not "technical" in our > > > sense of the > > > > word. That should be lots of fun :-) > > > > > > It will be interesting to see if ICANN has as much > trouble, or IEEE > > > during the intermediate week. > > > > > > I have heard an interesting bit of anecdotal evidence > that indicates > > > the situation is worse at IETF meetings then at other > meetings. I > > > questioned it, but who knows? > > > > > > a. > > > > > > > I know. I am attending both the IEEE 802 Plenary meetings > and the IETF > > meetings for many years. I can witness first hand that the > situation > > is much worse at the IETF meetings than at the IEEE ones. > Practically, > > the network is perfect at most IEEE meetings. True, I believe that > > they are outsourcing the network deployment and its maintenance > > during the meeting. > > > > As I will be attending the IEEE 802 meeting next week (in > Vancouver, > > but at a different hotel) I will be able to report by the > end of the > > week how it was. Anyway, it hardly can be worse than at the > IETF meeting. > > During this whole IETF week I could almost never connect during the > > meetings. I had to wait for the lunch break when everybody > was away, > > or to go to my room (at the 7th floor in the tower) to be able to > > connect to the IETF wireless network. > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Dan, You must have been on 802.11b. 802.11a was solid from Tuesday morning through to the end of the week. I was having problems on Monday with dueling access points but that was fixed by Tuesday morning. Cheers, Andy --- At 11/12/2005 06:45 +0200, Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\) wrote: I know. I am attending both the IEEE 802 Plenary meetings and the IETF meetings for many years. I can witness first hand that the situation is much worse at the IETF meetings than at the IEEE ones. Practically, the network is perfect at most IEEE meetings. True, I believe that they are outsourcing the network deployment and its maintenance during the meeting. As I will be attending the IEEE 802 meeting next week (in Vancouver, but at a different hotel) I will be able to report by the end of the week how it was. Anyway, it hardly can be worse than at the IETF meeting. During this whole IETF week I could almost never connect during the meetings. I had to wait for the lunch break when everybody was away, or to go to my room (at the 7th floor in the tower) to be able to connect to the IETF wireless network. Regards, Dan ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 07:38:40 +0200 "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can ask, but I doubt that this information is available. What I know Why on Earth wouldn't it be ? I am an IEEE member, and would not take it kindly not to know how my dues and registration fees are spent. It's not necessary to get an exact number or see the contract, just get an approximate value. Look at Ray's recent budget posts. The IETF is largely supported by registration fees, meeting sponsors, and ISOC. That says to me that if we want to have outsourced wireless support (a new charge, since this is now done by volunteers and donations), it will have to be added to registration fees. It seems to me that the IETF community, since it both pays the registration fees, and experiences the wireless access performance, is best situated to determine whether or not this should be outsourced via a surcharge on registration fees. In order to have this discussion meaningfully, someone needs to get a good estimate (not necessarily a quote, but not a guess, either) of what it would cost. Regards Marshall Eubanks > is that the registration fee for the IEEE 802 Plenary meeting is > considerably lower than the one at the IETF (300 USD vs. 500 USD). > > Regards, > > Dan > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:11 AM > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Avri Doria; Ole Jacobsen > > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN > > in ad hoc mode > > > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 06:45:59 +0200 > > "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dan; > > > > You should see if you can find out what it costs the IEEE 802 > > to outsource the wireless LAN, both total and per person. > > > > Regards; > > Marshall Eubanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > > > Of Avri Doria > > > > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:15 AM > > > > To: Ole Jacobsen > > > > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad > > > > hoc mode > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 nov 2005, at 13.56, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > > > > > > > > > In 19 days, this very hotel and meeting rooms will be > > filled with > > > > > ICANN attendees, most of whom are not "technical" in our > > > > sense of the > > > > > word. That should be lots of fun :-) > > > > > > > > It will be interesting to see if ICANN has as much > > trouble, or IEEE > > > > during the intermediate week. > > > > > > > > I have heard an interesting bit of anecdotal evidence > > that indicates > > > > the situation is worse at IETF meetings then at other > > meetings. I > > > > questioned it, but who knows? > > > > > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > I know. I am attending both the IEEE 802 Plenary meetings > > and the IETF > > > meetings for many years. I can witness first hand that the > > situation > > > is much worse at the IETF meetings than at the IEEE ones. > > Practically, > > > the network is perfect at most IEEE meetings. True, I believe that > > > they are outsourcing the network deployment and its maintenance > > > during the meeting. > > > > > > As I will be attending the IEEE 802 meeting next week (in > > Vancouver, > > > but at a different hotel) I will be able to report by the > > end of the > > > week how it was. Anyway, it hardly can be worse than at the > > IETF meeting. > > > During this whole IETF week I could almost never connect during the > > > meetings. I had to wait for the lunch break when everybody > > was away, > > > or to go to my room (at the 7th floor in the tower) to be able to > > > connect to the IETF wireless network. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > 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: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Andy, So, I am confused. Are you saying we should use 802.11a because it works better or is somehow isolated from malicious or accidental misuse? -- Eric --> -Original Message- --> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis --> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 10:14 AM --> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) --> Cc: Avri Doria; Ole Jacobsen; ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN --> in ad hoc mode --> --> Dan, --> --> You must have been on 802.11b. 802.11a was solid from --> Tuesday morning through to the end of the week. I was --> having problems on Monday with dueling access points but --> that was fixed by Tuesday morning. --> --> Cheers, --> Andy --> --> --- --> --> At 11/12/2005 06:45 +0200, Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\) wrote: --> --> >I know. I am attending both the IEEE 802 Plenary meetings --> and the IETF --> >meetings for many years. I can witness first hand that the --> situation is --> >much worse at the IETF meetings than at the IEEE ones. --> Practically, the --> >network is perfect at most IEEE meetings. True, I believe --> that they are --> >outsourcing the network deployment and its maintenance during the --> >meeting. --> > --> >As I will be attending the IEEE 802 meeting next week (in --> Vancouver, --> >but at a different hotel) I will be able to report by the --> end of the --> >week how it was. Anyway, it hardly can be worse than at --> the IETF meeting. --> >During this whole IETF week I could almost never connect --> during the --> >meetings. I had to wait for the lunch break when everybody --> was away, or --> >to go to my room (at the 7th floor in the tower) to be --> able to connect --> >to the IETF wireless network. --> > --> >Regards, --> > --> >Dan --> --> --> ___ --> 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: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Gray, Eric wrote: Andy, So, I am confused. Are you saying we should use 802.11a because it works better or is somehow isolated from malicious or accidental misuse? Three things. chipsets lack support for ibss mode in 802.11a 8 non-overlapping indoor channels in north america, makes the 802.11a radio noise situation more tractable. From a deployment perspective the map coloring problem is much easier. All things being equal an a card has signficantly shorter range range at 5.8ghz than a b card does at 2412ghz, and more surfaces (airwalls people etc) are opaque. This cuts down on the noise quite a bit. -- Eric --> -Original Message- --> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis --> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 10:14 AM --> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) --> Cc: Avri Doria; Ole Jacobsen; ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN --> in ad hoc mode --> --> Dan, --> --> You must have been on 802.11b. 802.11a was solid from --> Tuesday morning through to the end of the week. I was --> having problems on Monday with dueling access points but --> that was fixed by Tuesday morning. --> --> Cheers, --> Andy --> --> --- --> --> At 11/12/2005 06:45 +0200, Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\) wrote: --> --> >I know. I am attending both the IEEE 802 Plenary meetings --> and the IETF --> >meetings for many years. I can witness first hand that the --> situation is --> >much worse at the IETF meetings than at the IEEE ones. --> Practically, the --> >network is perfect at most IEEE meetings. True, I believe --> that they are --> >outsourcing the network deployment and its maintenance during the --> >meeting. --> > --> >As I will be attending the IEEE 802 meeting next week (in --> Vancouver, --> >but at a different hotel) I will be able to report by the --> end of the --> >week how it was. Anyway, it hardly can be worse than at --> the IETF meeting. --> >During this whole IETF week I could almost never connect --> during the --> >meetings. I had to wait for the lunch break when everybody --> was away, or --> >to go to my room (at the 7th floor in the tower) to be --> able to connect --> >to the IETF wireless network. --> > --> >Regards, --> > --> >Dan --> --> --> ___ --> 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 -- -- 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: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Joel, Thanks - but to answer Eric directly, I was just saying that I was a happy camper for most of the week on 802.11a, in contrast to the problems some people were having on 802.11b. I wasn't making any particular recommendations, but at the next IETF, if your card can support 802.11a, give a try and use whichever mode works best for you. Cheers, Andy - At 11/14/2005 09:29 -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Gray, Eric wrote: Andy, So, I am confused. Are you saying we should use 802.11a because it works better or is somehow isolated from malicious or accidental misuse? Three things. chipsets lack support for ibss mode in 802.11a 8 non-overlapping indoor channels in north america, makes the 802.11a radio noise situation more tractable. From a deployment perspective the map coloring problem is much easier. All things being equal an a card has signficantly shorter range range at 5.8ghz than a b card does at 2412ghz, and more surfaces (airwalls people etc) are opaque. This cuts down on the noise quite a bit. -- Eric --> -Original Message- --> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis --> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 10:14 AM --> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) --> Cc: Avri Doria; Ole Jacobsen; ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN --> in ad hoc mode --> --> Dan, --> --> You must have been on 802.11b. 802.11a was solid from --> Tuesday morning through to the end of the week. I was --> having problems on Monday with dueling access points but --> that was fixed by Tuesday morning. --> --> Cheers, --> Andy --> --> --- --> --> At 11/12/2005 06:45 +0200, Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\) wrote: --> --> >I know. I am attending both the IEEE 802 Plenary meetings --> and the IETF --> >meetings for many years. I can witness first hand that the --> situation is --> >much worse at the IETF meetings than at the IEEE ones. --> Practically, the --> >network is perfect at most IEEE meetings. True, I believe --> that they are --> >outsourcing the network deployment and its maintenance during the --> >meeting. --> > --> >As I will be attending the IEEE 802 meeting next week (in --> Vancouver, --> >but at a different hotel) I will be able to report by the --> end of the --> >week how it was. Anyway, it hardly can be worse than at --> the IETF meeting. --> >During this whole IETF week I could almost never connect --> during the --> >meetings. I had to wait for the lunch break when everybody --> was away, or --> >to go to my room (at the 7th floor in the tower) to be --> able to connect --> >to the IETF wireless network. --> > --> >Regards, --> > --> >Dan --> --> --> ___ --> 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 -- -- 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: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
> Are you saying we should use 802.11a because it > works better or is somehow isolated from malicious or accidental > misuse? No, 802.11a is usually not as good. That's why fewer chipsets bother supporting it, and thus there was less interference for those which do. This is simply a case where in a multiple-standard environment the less prevalent one gains an advantage. (Another case - less common operating systems and software are attacked by fewer viruses.) Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Joel, > You can,(we've done it in the past) but since they're not actually > connected to the network when they're misbehaving it doesn't buy you much > until they fix their card, sleep their laptop, or reboot. > > Having done some testing with various Operating systems wireless > implmentations, I think we can say with some degree of confidence the > instigating hosts are generally windows 2000 machines, it could be time to > upgrade because the winxp ndis wireless drivers won't do this without some > coaxing. Or, I'd be happy to hand out knoppix cd's to anyone who wants > one. Do you have a sense if it is Win 2000 or if it is related to any specific wlan driver software? I'd think a basic list of cards / sw that often misbehave would be a good thing. That way, when we see a few adhoc devices in a meeting, the chairs could more specifically tell people running OS X / card Y to check their devices. John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, John Loughney wrote: Do you have a sense if it is Win 2000 or if it is related to any specific wlan driver software? I'd think a basic list of cards / sw that often misbehave would be a good thing. That way, when we see a few adhoc devices in a meeting, the chairs could more specifically tell people running OS X / card Y to check their devices. The survey we did is about two years old now, but at the time a fair number of the win2k drivers would produce this behavior. Basically to much default auto-configuration. having the wireless card be mananged by windows (winxp) went a long way towards solving this issue for windows machines. It is still possible to hose yourself if you try. It think it would be a fairly serious mistake to add to the workload of the working-group chairs by making them front-line tech support for the wireless network. The current exhortation towards checking for your laptop being in adhoc mode is well meaning, but a lot like throwing salt over the shoulder. If we want to characterize certain users or applications as mission critical providing additional wired ports in meeting rooms to support them seems reasonable. Including large numbers of wired ports seems like madness however. John -- -- 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
IEEE vs IETF (one more time) was RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Hardly a fair comparison. It is so evident I'll just sum it up. IETF meetings support the entire organization for the entire year (or at least a third of it). Yeah yeah, blah blah ISOC insurance... IEEE makes money in all sorts of other ways, including IEEE Dues to say the least. I haven't tried very hard, but in 30 seconds of surfing, I can become a year long member in IEEE $156, attend one meeting $300, and get one specification [picked one at random] $109. I think it would be great to get a firm price on how much it would cost to outsource the network. We would finally get people to realize the value they are getting by having hosts and volunteers. --Brett > I can ask, but I doubt that this information is available. What I know is that the registration fee for the IEEE 802 Plenary meeting is considerably lower than the one at the IETF (300 USD vs. 500 USD). > > Regards, > > Dan > > > > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:11 AM >> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Avri Doria; Ole Jacobsen >> Cc: ietf@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN >> in ad hoc mode >> >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 06:45:59 +0200 >> "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> Dear Dan; >> >> You should see if you can find out what it costs the IEEE 802 >> to outsource the wireless LAN, both total and per person. >> >> Regards; >> Marshall Eubanks >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > -Original Message- >> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> > > Of Avri Doria >> > > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:15 AM >> > > To: Ole Jacobsen >> > > Cc: ietf@ietf.org >> > > Subject: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On 11 nov 2005, at 13.56, Ole Jacobsen wrote: >> > > >> > > > In 19 days, this very hotel and meeting rooms will be >> filled with >> > > > ICANN attendees, most of whom are not "technical" in our >> > > sense of the >> > > > word. That should be lots of fun :-) >> > > >> > > It will be interesting to see if ICANN has as much >> trouble, or IEEE >> > > during the intermediate week. >> > > >> > > I have heard an interesting bit of anecdotal evidence >> that indicates >> > > the situation is worse at IETF meetings then at other >> meetings. I >> > > questioned it, but who knows? >> > > >> > > a. >> > > >> > >> > I know. I am attending both the IEEE 802 Plenary meetings >> and the IETF >> > meetings for many years. I can witness first hand that the >> situation >> > is much worse at the IETF meetings than at the IEEE ones. >> Practically, >> > the network is perfect at most IEEE meetings. True, I believe that they are outsourcing the network deployment and its maintenance during the meeting. >> > >> > As I will be attending the IEEE 802 meeting next week (in >> Vancouver, >> > but at a different hotel) I will be able to report by the >> end of the >> > week how it was. Anyway, it hardly can be worse than at the >> IETF meeting. >> > During this whole IETF week I could almost never connect during the meetings. I had to wait for the lunch break when everybody >> was away, >> > or to go to my room (at the 7th floor in the tower) to be able to connect to the IETF wireless network. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Dan >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ___ >> > 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: IEEE vs IETF (one more time) was RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Yes, I know that the IEEE has different sources of funding, and I did not intent to make any comparison at the level of the two organizations. I was just providing the information from the perspective of the fees that need to be paid by an individual participant in the work of the two organizations. BTW, you need not be an IEEE member to take part in the work of a IEEE 802 Working Group or to attend meetings, you just need to pay the meeting fee. Regards, Dan > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Brett Thorson > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:19 PM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: IEEE vs IETF (one more time) was RE: Please make > sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode > > Hardly a fair comparison. It is so evident I'll just sum it up. > > IETF meetings support the entire organization for the entire > year (or at least a third of it). Yeah yeah, blah blah ISOC > insurance... > > IEEE makes money in all sorts of other ways, including IEEE > Dues to say the least. I haven't tried very hard, but in 30 > seconds of surfing, I can become a year long member in IEEE > $156, attend one meeting $300, and get one specification > [picked one at random] $109. > > I think it would be great to get a firm price on how much it > would cost to outsource the network. We would finally get > people to realize the value they are getting by having hosts > and volunteers. > > --Brett > > > > > I can ask, but I doubt that this information is available. > What I know > is that the registration fee for the IEEE 802 Plenary meeting > is considerably lower than the one at the IETF (300 USD vs. 500 USD). > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:11 AM > >> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Avri Doria; Ole Jacobsen > >> Cc: ietf@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your > WLAN in ad hoc > >> mode > >> > >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 06:45:59 +0200 > >> "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Dear Dan; > >> > >> You should see if you can find out what it costs the IEEE 802 to > >> outsource the wireless LAN, both total and per person. > >> > >> Regards; > >> Marshall Eubanks > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -Original Message- > >> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > >> > > Of Avri Doria > >> > > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:15 AM > >> > > To: Ole Jacobsen > >> > > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > >> > > Subject: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your > WLAN in ad > hoc mode > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On 11 nov 2005, at 13.56, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > In 19 days, this very hotel and meeting rooms will be > >> filled with > >> > > > ICANN attendees, most of whom are not "technical" in our > >> > > sense of the > >> > > > word. That should be lots of fun :-) > >> > > > >> > > It will be interesting to see if ICANN has as much > >> trouble, or IEEE > >> > > during the intermediate week. > >> > > > >> > > I have heard an interesting bit of anecdotal evidence > >> that indicates > >> > > the situation is worse at IETF meetings then at other > >> meetings. I > >> > > questioned it, but who knows? > >> > > > >> > > a. > >> > > > >> > > >> > I know. I am attending both the IEEE 802 Plenary meetings > >> and the IETF > >> > meetings for many years. I can witness first hand that the > >> situation > >> > is much worse at the IETF meetings than at the IEEE ones. > >> Practically, > >> > the network is perfect at most IEEE meetings. True, I > believe that > they are outsourcing the network deployment and its > maintenance during the meeting. > >> > > >> > As I will be attending the IEEE 802 meeting next week (in > >> Vancouver, > >> > but at a different hotel) I will be able to report by the > >> end of the > >> > week how it was. Anyway, it hardly can be worse than at the > >> IETF meeting. > >> > During this whole IETF week I could almost never connect > during the > meetings. I had to wait for the lunch break when everybody > >> was away, > >> > or to go to my room (at the 7th floor in the tower) to be able to > connect to the IETF wireless network. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > Dan > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ___ > >> > 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 > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
