> 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 wh
lf 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
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 w
--> 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
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, an
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
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 plenar
--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 h
on
> 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 s
.
>
> 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
>> S
day, 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, Da
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 kn
[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
>
> > -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
> -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 m
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
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 obse
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 shou
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 (
(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 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 I
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
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
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
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
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
b
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
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 sim
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 n
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
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
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 a
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
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 meeting
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 accesspo
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* freq
gt; 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"?
-->
-
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",
gt;
> 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 WLA
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 Proto
> 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 FC
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
> implmentatio
v 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 netw
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 D
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,(
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 m
46 matches
Mail list logo
