|
1. If I have the aPPo on default key 1 and some of my clients on default 2, some on default 3, some on default 4…..are you saying that all my clients will still associate AND communicate with no problems?? sB: Yes this is correct as long the value matches the respective Key in the aPPO, ie. Key 2 on CPE (default key is 2 ) match Key 2 on AP (default key is 1) 2. Does “shared” or “open” authentication have any play at all in this? sB: Yes, there is. In general, shared – shared, open – open, both – open is the working combination 3. If I really can do this, then wouldn’t it make sense to do so? That way, there is not 100% of your traffic using the same key, therefore less susceptible to cracking (which is pretty hard as it is). Right?? sB: Yes, in a sense, it is more secure. 4. What drawbacks are there to doing this?? ß may take more than 1 word (-; sb: Can’t think of any drawback. 5. Is there any slow down with the aPPo switching between keys? sB: Should be the same. Anyway, they need to perform the “secret key” lookup 6. Would this have adverse affects on LQ due to introducing “hidden node” issues? For example, now some of the clients (even neighbors on different keys) are not “hearing” each other, and therefore will not shut up…causing more collisions. sB: The WEP key has no relation to LQ due to hidden node issue at all. Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
Seeni, Thanks for the great description! Can you please answer my questions with just a simple yes/no. hhahaa…anything more than that and I will probably get lost. FACT: I ALWAYS burn in all 4 keys into all client devices which exactly match my head-end aPPo. 1. If I have the aPPo on default key 1 and some of my clients on default 2, some on default 3, some on default 4…..are you saying that all my clients will still associate AND communicate with no problems?? 2. Does “shared” or “open” authentication have any play at all in this? 3. If I really can do this, then wouldn’t it make sense to do so? That way, there is not 100% of your traffic using the same key, therefore less susceptible to cracking (which is pretty hard as it is). Right?? 4. What drawbacks are there to doing this?? ß may take more than 1 word (-; 5. Is there any slow down with the aPPo switching between keys? 6. Would this have adverse affects on LQ due to introducing “hidden node” issues? For example, now some of the clients (even neighbors on different keys) are not “hearing” each other, and therefore will not shut up…causing more collisions. Thanks! Sully -----Original Message----- Hi Sevak, For example, if the transmitter (Access point) used to encrypt the packet WEP Key of Key 1, then receiver (CPE) will use the corresponding WEP key of Key 1, since this key is used for the encryption of the packet and exists as information. Here is the example of WEP key selection procedure:
Transmiter Receiver
AP <--------------------------------> Client
Key1: 11 11 11 11 Key1: 11 11 11 11 Key2: 22 22 22 22 Key2: 22 22 22 22
Default key = 1 Default key = 2
Authentication result = OK
AP <--------------------------------> Client
Key1: 11 11 11 11 Key1: 22 22 22 22 Key2: 22 22 22 22 Key2: 11 11 11 11
Default key = 1 Default key = 2
Authentication result = Failed As mentioned above, the CLIENT keys table should match the APPO keys table. In order to activate the WEP key in the APPO(AP mode), you must select at least one key as a default key. But all the 4 keys are in the access point is enabled for the authentication. In the client side, the selected “default key” ONLY activated for the authentication and it should match with APPO’s table entry as stated above.
Thank you Seeni sB Tech Support -----Original Message----- Hi Seeni, Hi Sevak, |
Title: RE: [smartBridges] WEP encryption
- RE: [smartBridges] WEP encryption Seeni Mohamed
- RE: [smartBridges] WEP encryption Sevak Avakians
- RE: [smartBridges] WEP encryption The Wirefree Network
- Re: [smartBridges] WEP encryption sB Tech Support
- Re: [smartBridges] WEP encryption Billy Huddleston
- [smartBridges] need opinions Gloria Vester
- RE: [smartBridges] WEP encryption Sevak Avakians
- RE: [smartBridges] OFF-TOPIC newsgro... Sevak Avakians
- RE: [smartBridges] OFF-TOPIC ne... Scott Damron
- RE: [smartBridges] OFF-TOPI... Sevak Avakians
- Re: [smartBridges] OFF-... George
- [smartBridges] Fun Fact... Rudolph Worrell
- Re: [smartBridges] Fun ... Martin Moreno
- RE: [smartBridges] Fun ... Rudolph Worrell
