Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] LTE over Wi-Fi spectrum sets up industry-wide fight over interference
My observations: the current pre-standard product suite that use the LTE-protocol on the 5Gh band are targeting indoor, not outdoor. All marketing and communications on LTE and 5Ghz band is around mobile operators and their need for spectrum. From a technical perspective, I must admit that LTE is a more efficient protocol than Wi-Fi is. So, in addition to preventing that operators ruin the spectrum at our Wi-Fi facilities we should also knock on the doors of our Wi-Fi vendors and asking them how they integrate LTE-U (or another flavour) in their Wi-Fi product offering for our benefits. Frankly speaking, I do not care whether the radio communication uses Wi-Fi, LTE or what ever protocol as long as it does its job well and efficiently. -Frans Brian Helman schreef op 28/08/15 om 03:42: Mike, I was just about to post the same quote, and I looked down and saw it in your post. How viable is 5GHz in this situation? I mean, we've now rolled out two AC buildings. The signals go through 1 wall fine, but 2 walls or a single outside wall and the signal is non-existent. If they won't be allowed to crank it up to 11, is it useful? What am I missing? -Brian ' *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] on behalf of Mike King [m...@mpking.com] *Sent:* Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:08 PM *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] LTE over Wi-Fi spectrum sets up industry-wide fight over interference Quote from the article: T-Mobile wrote. Qualcomm said its testing http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001104452 shows that Wi-Fi access points often have better throughput when sharing a channel with LTE-U than when sharing a channel with another Wi-Fi access point. Here's my comment: We'll duh. Two AP's on the same channel is something we try to avoid, because It's Bad®. How about comparing throughput of an AP with no interference (Cause that's what we call two AP's on the same channel), and a AP with LTE-U on the same channel. Mike On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Coehoorn, Joel jcoeho...@york.edu mailto:jcoeho...@york.edu wrote: The good news is that LTE-U still has the same power limitations as other unlicensed uses. Telecom companies won't be able to easily provision an LTE-U tower every 30 meters within our campus, limiting their ability to cause interference. Instead, I see them mostly using this fill coverage gabs by selling wifi routers with an LTE-U service built-in for rural and other underserved areas. Additionally, I see them using this to try to push their backhaul costs onto other providers. A Verizon could get a Cox to help foot their transit bill by selling their special routers to customers at just below their cost. Consumers would buy these routers because they are cheaper, and suddenly Verizon gets some free spectrum in that area and can manage things so the call terminates at the Verizon location nearest the other end of the conversation. The biggest risk on our end is probably having students bringing routers with this ability into their residences, but we can deal with that the same way we've always done... well, almost, depending on how the whole Mariott thing turns out. Joel Coehoorn Director of Information Technology 402.363.5603 tel:402.363.5603 *jcoeho...@york.edu mailto:jcoeho...@york.edu* The mission of York College is to transform lives through Christ-centered education and to equip students for lifelong service to God, family, and society On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Thomas Carter tcar...@austincollege.edu mailto:tcar...@austincollege.edu wrote: Don’t forget the WiFi SLA discussion – another source of interference outside of our control. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College *From:*The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Philippe Hanset *Sent:* Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:17 PM *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] LTE over Wi-Fi spectrum sets up industry-wide fight over interference We can now combine three threads that we have had over the summer on this list 5 GHz, Containment, and the LTE-U controversy (this thread just started) LTE-U and Jamming…will my Wi-Fi equipment provider enable LTE-U “containment” and as a University/College how can I prevent LTE-U from
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] iPhone hotspots that are on when off.
It may be related to the similar issues we see with AWDL AirDrop. Try switching off BT. -Frans Lee H Badman schreef op 28/08/15 om 15:48: Damn my eyes. Just saw this first hand this morning. A young lady has an iPhone, and it had the hotspot feature enabled. We were picking it up as a strong rogue in our NMS. I asked her if she could kindly disable it, which she did. But then things got weird. She went to another building, where we happen to have high-density, world-class 802.11ac wireless using very small cells. And her hotspot was picked up again, with a connected client. As I monitored the situation, I couldn’t help but think that it got turned back on- either accidentally or deliberately. So I reached out again, and she assured me that it’s turned off. So I took my curiosity to The Google. It turns out a lot of people have already noticed that “No” doesn’t mean “No” when it comes to Apple’s iPhone hotspots. It actually means “we’ll show you that it’s off, but other devices can turn it on”. You can’t make this stuff up. _https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6616026?start=30tstart=0_ Couple of select screenshots from the thread attached. Confirmed by an Apple SE to be a feature, and asked why this would ever be a problem (yeah, really). So… settle in for the ride - those Apple iPhone hotspots evidently have a mind of their own. *Lee Badman*| Network Architect Information Technology Services 206 Machinery Hall 120 Smith Drive Syracuse, New York 13244 *t* 315.443.3003 *f* 315.443.4325 *e* _lhbadman@syr.edu_ mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu *w* its.syr.edu *SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY *syr.edu ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] iPhone hotspots that are on when off.
On Fri Aug 28 2015 08:48:09 CDT, Lee H Badman lhbad...@syr.edu wrote: So I reached out again, and she assured me that it’s turned off. So I took my curiosity to The Google. It turns out a lot of people have already noticed that “No” doesn’t mean “No” when it comes to Apple’s iPhone hotspots. It actually means “we’ll show you that it’s off, but other devices can turn it on”. I think there's a little bit of nuance that might be getting missed here. My feeling is that the root cause of all of this is related to the Handoff/Continuity feature set that was introduced with Mac OS X Yosemite and iOS 8. http://www.apple.com/osx/continuity/ These features use Bluetooth and Wi-Fi Direct and AppleIDs to link your devices together to be able to do things like have your laptop and iPad turn on the personal hotspot on your phone (among other things like use your laptop/iPad to receive and make calls through your phone, relay text messages, start composing an email or reading a web page on one device and pick up on another, etc etc). So yes, the advice to turn off Bluetooth will definitely stop the behavior from happening, but I think one other piece is to tell the laptop not to remember all the Wi-Fi networks that it has connected to (or change the priority of remembered networks such that the hotspot SSID is lower in priority than your university network). Or in the case of the iPad, have it forget the network sourced by the personal hotspot. That way, if the laptop/iPad can't connect to any of its other configured networks, it won't then fall back to try to activate the hotspot on the phone. I haven't tested this exhaustively, but that's the best hypothesis I can come up with based on a description of the issue and the configurations of my own devices. -- Julian Y. Koh Associate Director, Telecommunications and Network Services Northwestern University Information Technology (NUIT) 2001 Sheridan Road #G-166 Evanston, IL 60208 847-467-5780 NUIT Web Site: http://www.it.northwestern.edu/ PGP Public Key:http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] LTE over Wi-Fi spectrum sets up industry-wide fight over interference
Frans, I tend to agree with you. LTE is a pretty awesome standard when you step back and look at just what it can do. However, a few crucial differences between it and 802.11: 1. LTE typically uses an order of magnitude higher or more transmit power. My smartphone can blast out a 2W (!!!) signal on T-Mobile's 2700MHz band. This, obviously, affects SNR substantially. 2. LTE has always been deployed in licensed radio bands meaning that any interference is effectively zero. 3. LTE, while employing OFDM like 802.11, usually uses TDMA rather than CSMA/CA My point in this is that LTE was designed for an ideal environment where same-band interference is low/nonexistent, SNRs are higher, and the tower controls who talks and when. It IS a far more spectrally efficient standard but only when you give it ideal working conditions. At 100mW of output power and dealing with 802.11 and other interference, I'd be interested to see how it fairs. Thank you! -Matthew Hinson Network Operations Supervisor From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU on behalf of Frans Panken frans.pan...@surfnet.nl Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 4:21 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] LTE over Wi-Fi spectrum sets up industry-wide fight over interference My observations: the current pre-standard product suite that use the LTE-protocol on the 5Gh band are targeting indoor, not outdoor. All marketing and communications on LTE and 5Ghz band is around mobile operators and their need for spectrum. From a technical perspective, I must admit that LTE is a more efficient protocol than Wi-Fi is. So, in addition to preventing that operators ruin the spectrum at our Wi-Fi facilities we should also knock on the doors of our Wi-Fi vendors and asking them how they integrate LTE-U (or another flavour) in their Wi-Fi product offering for our benefits. Frankly speaking, I do not care whether the radio communication uses Wi-Fi, LTE or what ever protocol as long as it does its job well and efficiently. -Frans Brian Helman schreef op 28/08/15 om 03:42: Mike, I was just about to post the same quote, and I looked down and saw it in your post. How viable is 5GHz in this situation? I mean, we've now rolled out two AC buildings. The signals go through 1 wall fine, but 2 walls or a single outside wall and the signal is non-existent. If they won't be allowed to crank it up to 11, is it useful? What am I missing? -Brian ' From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] on behalf of Mike King [m...@mpking.commailto:m...@mpking.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:08 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] LTE over Wi-Fi spectrum sets up industry-wide fight over interference Quote from the article: T-Mobile wrote. Qualcomm said its testinghttp://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001104452 shows that Wi-Fi access points often have better throughput when sharing a channel with LTE-U than when sharing a channel with another Wi-Fi access point. Here's my comment: We'll duh. Two AP's on the same channel is something we try to avoid, because It's Bad®. How about comparing throughput of an AP with no interference (Cause that's what we call two AP's on the same channel), and a AP with LTE-U on the same channel. Mike On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Coehoorn, Joel jcoeho...@york.edumailto:jcoeho...@york.edu wrote: The good news is that LTE-U still has the same power limitations as other unlicensed uses. Telecom companies won't be able to easily provision an LTE-U tower every 30 meters within our campus, limiting their ability to cause interference. Instead, I see them mostly using this fill coverage gabs by selling wifi routers with an LTE-U service built-in for rural and other underserved areas. Additionally, I see them using this to try to push their backhaul costs onto other providers. A Verizon could get a Cox to help foot their transit bill by selling their special routers to customers at just below their cost. Consumers would buy these routers because they are cheaper, and suddenly Verizon gets some free spectrum in that area and can manage things so the call terminates at the Verizon location nearest the other end of the conversation. The biggest risk on our end is probably having students bringing routers with this ability into their residences, but we can deal with that the same way we've always done... well, almost, depending on how the whole Mariott thing turns out. [http://www.york.edu/Portals/0/Images/Logo/YorkCollegeLogoSmall.jpg] Joel Coehoorn Director of Information Technology 402.363.5603tel:402.363.5603 jcoeho...@york.edumailto:jcoeho...@york.edu
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] LTE over Wi-Fi spectrum sets up industry-wide fight over interference
Frans, Unfortunately LTE is a 3GPP protocol (proprietary and designed for efficiency of spectrum usage) and 802.11 is an IEEE protocol (general public, sloppy is accepted ;-). I recently attended a conference on Wi-Fi organized by commercial providers. Most of the presentations were about “how to capitalize Wi-Fi”, not just Wi-Fi-offload, but cash loading with Wi-Fi. I get it, they have to make money, it’s their first duty to their shareholders … but I like my “wireless freedom” and I’ll fight for it. When I switch from cellular to Wi-Fi I feel more relaxed as far as what I can do. I can watch a video online without having to worry about my monthly quota. Also, the sharing of Wi-Fi (visitor access) is decided by the local people who operate it. So, it is not so much about interferences and efficiency but rather about an insidious invasion of a spectrum that is available for the people not for mega large operators. LTE moving in 5 GHz feels like Wal-Mart moving in a local Farmers Market! They might even sell the same tomatoes grown by the same local people, but the small guys do not decide how it’s done. One day T-Mobile will knock on your door and propose to operate your wireless network with LTE only. (Our University used to have its own bakery and people loved it…then Aramark moved in ;-). Some schools like this model, some don’t. We need to make sure that the choice stays available. Philippe Philippe Hanset www.anyroam.net On Aug 28, 2015, at 4:21 AM, Frans Panken frans.pan...@surfnet.nl wrote: My observations: the current pre-standard product suite that use the LTE-protocol on the 5Gh band are targeting indoor, not outdoor. All marketing and communications on LTE and 5Ghz band is around mobile operators and their need for spectrum. From a technical perspective, I must admit that LTE is a more efficient protocol than Wi-Fi is. So, in addition to preventing that operators ruin the spectrum at our Wi-Fi facilities we should also knock on the doors of our Wi-Fi vendors and asking them how they integrate LTE-U (or another flavour) in their Wi-Fi product offering for our benefits. Frankly speaking, I do not care whether the radio communication uses Wi-Fi, LTE or what ever protocol as long as it does its job well and efficiently. -Frans Brian Helman schreef op 28/08/15 om 03:42: Mike, I was just about to post the same quote, and I looked down and saw it in your post. How viable is 5GHz in this situation? I mean, we've now rolled out two AC buildings. The signals go through 1 wall fine, but 2 walls or a single outside wall and the signal is non-existent. If they won't be allowed to crank it up to 11, is it useful? What am I missing? -Brian ' From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] on behalf of Mike King [m...@mpking.com mailto:m...@mpking.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:08 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] LTE over Wi-Fi spectrum sets up industry-wide fight over interference Quote from the article: T-Mobile wrote. Qualcomm said its testing http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001104452 shows that Wi-Fi access points often have better throughput when sharing a channel with LTE-U than when sharing a channel with another Wi-Fi access point. Here's my comment: We'll duh. Two AP's on the same channel is something we try to avoid, because It's Bad®. How about comparing throughput of an AP with no interference (Cause that's what we call two AP's on the same channel), and a AP with LTE-U on the same channel. Mike On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Coehoorn, Joel jcoeho...@york.edu mailto:jcoeho...@york.edu wrote: The good news is that LTE-U still has the same power limitations as other unlicensed uses. Telecom companies won't be able to easily provision an LTE-U tower every 30 meters within our campus, limiting their ability to cause interference. Instead, I see them mostly using this fill coverage gabs by selling wifi routers with an LTE-U service built-in for rural and other underserved areas. Additionally, I see them using this to try to push their backhaul costs onto other providers. A Verizon could get a Cox to help foot their transit bill by selling their special routers to customers at just below their cost. Consumers would buy these routers because they are cheaper, and suddenly Verizon gets some free spectrum in that area and can manage things so the call terminates at the Verizon location nearest the other end of the conversation. The biggest risk on our end is probably having students bringing routers with this ability into their residences, but we can deal with that the same way we've always done... well, almost, depending on how the whole Mariott
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] iPhone hotspots that are on when off.
It all sounds reasonable, and way too much to ask the typical user to do. Lee Badman | Network Architect Information Technology Services 206 Machinery Hall 120 Smith Drive Syracuse, New York 13244 t 315.443.3003 f 315.443.4325 e lhbad...@syr.edu w its.syr.edu SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY syr.edu -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Julian Y Koh Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:02 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] iPhone hotspots that are on when off. On Fri Aug 28 2015 08:48:09 CDT, Lee H Badman lhbad...@syr.edu wrote: So I reached out again, and she assured me that it’s turned off. So I took my curiosity to The Google. It turns out a lot of people have already noticed that “No” doesn’t mean “No” when it comes to Apple’s iPhone hotspots. It actually means “we’ll show you that it’s off, but other devices can turn it on”. I think there's a little bit of nuance that might be getting missed here. My feeling is that the root cause of all of this is related to the Handoff/Continuity feature set that was introduced with Mac OS X Yosemite and iOS 8. http://www.apple.com/osx/continuity/ These features use Bluetooth and Wi-Fi Direct and AppleIDs to link your devices together to be able to do things like have your laptop and iPad turn on the personal hotspot on your phone (among other things like use your laptop/iPad to receive and make calls through your phone, relay text messages, start composing an email or reading a web page on one device and pick up on another, etc etc). So yes, the advice to turn off Bluetooth will definitely stop the behavior from happening, but I think one other piece is to tell the laptop not to remember all the Wi-Fi networks that it has connected to (or change the priority of remembered networks such that the hotspot SSID is lower in priority than your university network). Or in the case of the iPad, have it forget the network sourced by the personal hotspot. That way, if the laptop/iPad can't connect to any of its other configured networks, it won't then fall back to try to activate the hotspot on the phone. I haven't tested this exhaustively, but that's the best hypothesis I can come up with based on a description of the issue and the configurations of my own devices. -- Julian Y. Koh Associate Director, Telecommunications and Network Services Northwestern University Information Technology (NUIT) 2001 Sheridan Road #G-166 Evanston, IL 60208 847-467-5780 NUIT Web Site: http://www.it.northwestern.edu/ PGP Public Key:http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Windows 10 Random Mac Address
Anyone else seeing Windows 10 devices with Randomize WiFi Hardware Address on? Just had one show up at our help desk. As we require MAC registration this puts a bind in things. Does anyone else have some information, a quick Google search didn't come up with anything. Heath Barnhart, CCNA ITS Network Administrator Washburn University 785-670-2307 ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Windows 10 Random Mac Address
Found a good presentation on this from the IETF https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-intarea-5.pdf On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Heath Barnhart heath.barnh...@washburn.edu wrote: Anyone else seeing Windows 10 devices with Randomize WiFi Hardware Address on? Just had one show up at our help desk. As we require MAC registration this puts a bind in things. Does anyone else have some information, a quick Google search didn't come up with anything. Heath Barnhart, CCNA ITS Network Administrator Washburn University 785-670-2307 ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Windows 10 Random Mac Address
So does anyone know if this was a feature at launch? Heath Barnhart, CCNA ITS Network Administrator Washburn University 785-670-2307 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU on behalf of Jake Snyder jsnyde...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 4:55 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Windows 10 Random Mac Address Found a good presentation on this from the IETF https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-intarea-5.pdf On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Heath Barnhart heath.barnh...@washburn.edumailto:heath.barnh...@washburn.edu wrote: Anyone else seeing Windows 10 devices with Randomize WiFi Hardware Address on? Just had one show up at our help desk. As we require MAC registration this puts a bind in things. Does anyone else have some information, a quick Google search didn't come up with anything. Heath Barnhart, CCNA ITS Network Administrator Washburn University 785-670-2307tel:785-670-2307 ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Windows 10 Random Mac Address
Does anyone have a list or reference of what hardware supports this feature? A quick survey of some of our known Windows 10 users has shown no sign of it. Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. On August 28, 2015 5:55:33 PM EDT, Jake Snyder jsnyde...@gmail.com wrote: Found a good presentation on this from the IETF https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-intarea-5.pdf On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Heath Barnhart heath.barnh...@washburn.edu wrote: Anyone else seeing Windows 10 devices with Randomize WiFi Hardware Address on? Just had one show up at our help desk. As we require MAC registration this puts a bind in things. Does anyone else have some information, a quick Google search didn't come up with anything. Heath Barnhart, CCNA ITS Network Administrator Washburn University 785-670-2307 ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
