A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 7561
Title: Mapping Quality of Service (QoS)
Procedures of Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)
and WLAN
Author: J. Kaippallimalil, R. Pazhyannur, P
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Mapping PMIPv6 QoS Procedures with WLAN QoS Procedures'
(draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-08.txt) as Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Brian
The IESG has received a request from the Network-Based Mobility
Extensions WG (netext) to consider the following document:
- 'Mapping PMIPv6 QoS Procedures with WLAN QoS procedures'
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-06.txt as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
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
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,
: 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
@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
. 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
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
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
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
,
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
: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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)
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
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
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
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
-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
: [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
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
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
:
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
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
: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
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
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
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
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
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
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
-- 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
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*
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
)
Para: ietf@ietf.org 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
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
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,
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
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
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Certificate Extensions and Attributes Supporting Authentication in
Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) and Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN) '
draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3770bis-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Public
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..?)
-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
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 =
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
-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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hi,
Someone(s) in IETF57 WLAN appear to advertise site-locals and 6to4
addresses. Please stop.
]# /sbin/ip -6 a l
1: lo: LOOPBACK,UP mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
4: eth1: BROADCAST,MULTICAST,NOTRAILERS,UP mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast
qlen 100
inet6 fec0::4:260
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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, ATT Wireless, my current employer
-*-
===
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
89 matches
Mail list logo
