A couple of general questions about 802.11 at IETF in Japan
I think problems are not specific in Japan but may be specific in IETF.
There are only 3 non-overlapping channel (e.g. 1-6-11) in 802.11b.
Actually there is another channel (14) which almost non-overlapping
to channel 11. We enabled
On Monday, and for some time on Wednesday, there were problems with overlapping
channels.
Sometimes we intentionally use overlapping channel configuration.
Basically, overlapping channel reduced performance, but the connectivity
should still remain. But the number of connected stations per
you need to do some engineering in order to make is such that the ap's
sitting on the same channels can't hear to much of each other. noise is
the biggest killer here because it results in more retransmissions which
results in deeper buffers on the ap's which results in more
retramismission
actually japan has four non-overlapping channels 802.11 channel 1 6 11 14
whereas the US has only three because their 2.4ghz ism band goes from
2.4-2.5 and ours goes from 2.4-2.483. some commonwealth countries have
more stringent output regulations than the US or JP but that's not an
the accompaning issues is more than 60-100 clients per ap (and ~200=death)
really results in reduced performance as well, particulallry if most of
them are active so more ap's can result in better localized performance,
assuming you get a handle on the rf issue.
maybe at IETF55,
Stef,
I'm doing some work in a W3C working group where one of the deliverables is
a set of test cases. I.e. a set of machine processable files that give
some kind of before-and-after indication of how certain constructs may be
processed.
These are used (a) as discussion points for building
Hello Graham --
Given your ideas and information, it seems to me that someone my be
able to make a business out of marketing testing software that
customers can use to evaluate other vendors software, so all
customers do not need to self develop the testing software.
This might well be an
I keep working on Keeping It Simple in honor of Stupid;-)... (KISS)
In keeping with this, and still seeking some progress, you might note
that my position is reasonably fluid, since the solution(s) do not
seem to be obvious from the beginning.
It is extremely difficult to do what is needed
Since interoperability on a one-to-many scale would be a problem,
perhaps approaching it from the many-to-one point of view would be
better.
Einar's ideas are good, but still difficult to implement. What happens
when a company fails to find every device it should be tested against?
It almost
Does UL go after companies that produce unsafe devices. My guess would
be no. As far as UL is concerned, companies voluntarily bring their
products to them for certification. It is the consumers and legal
authorities that give UL such a big stick. And with this model, UL
seems to be fairly
Well now, an idea blinked on here;-)...
As Paul Hoffman noted, it costs a small fortune for an entire set of
vendor products to be tested against all other interworking products
(N**2 pairs is the estimate) and there is no proffered business model
for doing this for the entire involved
go elsewhere or figure out why there isn't an
elsewhere and do something about it.
john
--On Monday, 28 January, 2002 09:01 -0800 John W Noerenberg II
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:19 PM -0500 1/26/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have in my bedroom a night light, which I purchased
Title: Why does Valdis trust UL?
At 10:19 PM -0500 1/26/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have in my bedroom a night light, which
I purchased at a local
grocery store. It has a UL logo on it, which doesn't tell me
much
about its suitability as a night light (I can't tell if it's
bright
enough
After studying a few e-mails on the ietf mail
system I am coming to several conclusions.
It will not be long before each house, never mind
business, is assigned a unique IP address, and that each house or business will
be permanently connected to the Internet.
When this happens there will
, December 11, 2001 2:10
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Justify what you are doing
and why you are doing it
After studying a few e-mails on the ietf mail
system I am coming to several conclusions.
It will not be long before each house, never mind
business, is assigned a unique IP
When this happens there will no longer be a need to have centrally served services,
such as e-mail, DNS, POP3 or HTTP/HTTPS etc. Control over the Internet will revert
back to the Internet community, where it belongs.
Which means your task should realistically only be concerned with router
From: David R. Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More realistically, some might consider IPv4 address allocation
policies as discouraging the growth of the Internet (I am not among
them)
...
** Most, if not all, of the same people who are refused IPv4 address
** allocations
Noel Chiappa wrote:
I hadn't realized the registries
were trying to guard against routing table bloat as well as
address space
exhaustion. I'm curious, when did this start, and how was it decided?
Miss a few meetings and all kinds of things start happening :)
Noel,
At 02:36 PM 11/30/2001 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
** Most, if not all, of the same people who are refused IPv4 address
** allocations will (or should if we expect not to re-create the swamp) be
** refused allocations of IPv6 addresses.
Holy smoke! That's really major.
Huh? This
RIRs allocate TLAs (or sub-TLAs) to TLA Registries.
there are no longer such things as TLAs
randy
At 12:53 PM 11/29/2001 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
the only benefit that IPv4 has over IPv6 (relative to routing table
size) is that IPv4 discourages growth of the Internet.
Only? Please.
An obvious benefits of v4 over v6 is that it is deployed. Another benefit
is the operational experience
Eric Rosen wrote:
...
Granted, it's easier to talk about the evils of NAT than to explain how
billions of new routable addresses are going to be added to the existing
routing system.
They're going to be added by aggregating them much more effectively than
for IPv4 (since the need for
Sure, in theory one could add zillions of new globally routable addresses
without increasing the size of the routing tables in the default-free zone
at all.
The skepticism is about whether there is (or even could be) a realistic plan
to make this happen.
I wish to express doubt on the (as you mentioned in an aside) there
should be. Consider what these addresses would be for and the
implications of THAT.
Eric Rosen wrote:
Sure, in theory one could add zillions of new globally routable addresses
without increasing the size of the routing
Cheese... this helps... I know it sounds crazy- but it works... but only
brie.
-Original Message-
From: Meritt James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 9:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
I wish to express doubt
At 8:36 AM -0500 11/29/01, Eric Rosen wrote:
Sure, in theory one could add zillions of new globally routable addresses
without increasing the size of the routing tables in the default-free zone
at all.
The skepticism is about whether there is (or even could be) a realistic plan
to make
Completely fantasimal
-Original Message-
From: Da Silva, Pedro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 10:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Why IPv6 is a must?
That depends on what you mean by 'realistic'
-Original Message-
From: Steve Deering
% At 8:36 AM -0500 11/29/01, Eric Rosen wrote:
% Sure, in theory one could add zillions of new globally routable addresses
% without increasing the size of the routing tables in the default-free zone
% at all.
%
% The skepticism is about whether there is (or even could be) a realistic plan
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
forcing most of the internet into a tree structure has its own scaling
problems.
A tree structure is not at all needed. What is needed is more aggregation.
Please see the definitive mathematical analysis of routing scaling via
aggregation:
Ian King wrote:
[..]
If folks must continue these tired old
arguments, can this please be moved to an IPv6 forum and/or to a NAT
forum?
Judging from the new names I see chiming in, not all the pros and cons
are
old news to everyone on this list. An education is occuring for people
the only benefit that IPv4 has over IPv6 (relative to routing table
size) is that IPv4 discourages growth of the Internet.
Only? Please.
An obvious benefits of v4 over v6 is that it is deployed.
that's why I said relative to routing table size.
Keith
% What's the realistic plan to prevent the IPv4 routing table from growing
% to 2^32 route entries?
trolling again? :)
it's about as reasonable as the question about the IPv6 routing table.
as long as the Internet grows, the routing table is going to grow also.
you might be able
%
% % What's the realistic plan to prevent the IPv4 routing table from growing
% % to 2^32 route entries?
%
% trolling again? :)
%
%
% it's about as reasonable as the question about the IPv6 routing table.
%
% Keith
%
back in the day, I told the CIDR/PIARA folks that it would
This thread has been going on for days, and I've seen little but a
rehash of the NATs are God's gift vs. NATs are the tool of Satan
that's been going on forever. Now it's branched off into another thread
- almost a viral thing.
heaven forbid we should discuss real technical issues on the
Peter Deutsch wrote:
...
The moral of the story? Traffic patterns and metadata can be powerful tools and
one person's junk is another person's data. You should not assume that the
majority of people shouldn't or wouldn't care about it leaking out, even if at
first glance it seems pretty
From: Sandy Wills
Keith writes:
.and you can tell a lot about me by
watching the temperature sensors at my house
(http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/home_temp.html)
Such as what?
[...]
Also, the general locus of values for outside air temp would imply
that it's damned cold
entirely agree. and you can tell a lot about me by
watching the temperature sensors at my house
(http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/home_temp.html)
Such as what?
Whether he's gone on vacation, probably--since he's at a .edu, there's a
good chance he gets a week or two off at Christmas; if he
If it hides the IP address of your fridge, wouldn't that impair anyone from
drinking your milk? If access to the resource is blocked using NAT, then
isn't that aspect of security inherent to NAT?
Charles
+-+-+
| Charles Adams | US
...)
With finer resolution data we might be able to determine when he wakes up
in the morning, how late he is up each day. Why is the basement temperature
important? Maybe he has an office there? No, looks too cold.
As for him being further north - I suspect that he is rather at higher
elevations as it does
Here is a point - what kind of IA would go on these accessible
devices? Do you WANT to be able to address (and control) your fridge
remotely? How about your home heating? Want to come home to find a
disgruntled hacker thought it funny to have your fridge turned off and
130 degrees in your
his home
number and house with a map and directions.
Need anything else?
Kenton
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John
Stracke
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 8:52 AM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
entirely agree
Brian NAT has simply pushed us back to the pre-1978 situation.
On the contrary, NAT has allowed us to maintain global connectivity without
requiring every system to have a globally unique address. NAT is what has
prevented us from returning to the pre-1978 situation.
That's not to say
If it hides the IP address of your fridge, wouldn't that impair anyone
from
drinking your milk?
No. That NAT can still be attacked, or other machines behind the NAT can
be attacked, and used to attack the fridge. Or the server the fridge
talks to may be subverted.
Eric,
First of all we are talking about several billion more addresses.
Second, you're correct, the NAT kludge has allowed us to delay
IPv6, i.e. simulate global connectivity some of the time. But
it is hardly a strategy for the next hundred years.
IPv6 was designed to help address
Look, either your fridge is accessible from outside so that you can check
how much milk you have from the office, or it isn't. That's independent
of whether its address happens to be NATted. It's dependent on the
security policy you choose to apply.
Brian
Charles Adams wrote:
If it hides
Look, either your fridge is accessible from outside so that you can check
how much milk you have from the office, or it isn't. That's independent
of whether its address happens to be NATted. It's dependent on the
security policy you choose to apply.
Brian
So does that mean that if I
Charles Adams wrote:
If there is a means for all hosts to have addresses that are
reachable from
all other hosts (barring that a security policy is in place),
will companies
renumber their internal networks to coincide with this
addressing scheme?
If we (the Internet community) used
billions of new routable addresses are going to be added to the
existing
routing system.
That's not a useful measure--what matters is the number of prefixes, not
the number of addresses. If everyone on the planet magically converted
from IPv4 to IPv6, and kept the same topology, the
At 3:23 PM -0500 11/28/01, Eric Rosen wrote:
Granted, it's easier to talk about the evils of NAT than to explain how
billions of new routable addresses are going to be added to the existing
routing system.
It's not the size (of the address) that matters, but how you use it.
Whether
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 03:35:21PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
The situation today with NAT is that hosts in separate realms can only
communicate in 99% of the desired applications,
to the extent this is true, it's only because the only applications
that people become aware of, are
Eric NAT is what has prevented us from returning to the pre-1978 situation.
Keith this is true only if you believe that [blah blah blah]
The situation today with NAT is that hosts in separate realms can only
communicate in 99% of the desired applications, though perhaps this falls to
Do you WANT to be able to address (and control) your fridge remotely?
not unless the fridge also maintains its own inventory and orders
more milk when its inventory gets low.
How about your home heating?
absolutely. I want to be able to turn the heat down when I'm out of
town, and up
(and in many cases that's the point of such devices) then NAT gets
in the way.
Keith
That's exactly why you want NAT/firewalling and other existing mechanisms.
These are devices that do not require global addressability. In fact they
SHOULD NOT be globally addressable.
SHOULD NOT be globally
-UDP-through-NAT, or
just plain 6to4 if possible. You run IPsec over that with a manual keys that is
configured into the meter when it was installed.
As you say - the water company does want security.
Why would anyone pay for this? Well, not for water or electricity in these
parts
Anthony == Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony That's exactly why you only need one telephone per family.
Anthony These are people who don't need to be individually reachable.
Families are going toward a telephone per person with caller id and/or
distinctive ring
If a node only requires accessibility by a few specialized nodes (such
as a water meter) then making it *visible* to more is just creating
a security hole that has to be plugged.
Yes, the hole can be plugged easily.
If there's a security hole in the meter, putting a firewall in front of it
Plus her work number, at which I can't reach her after the receptionist has
gone home, and her mobile phone is non-functional due to building issues, but
that's okay since her patient's pace-makers prefer it that way.
Let me see if I understand this correctly ... your wife is behind a NAT
(the
Lloyd Wood wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
...
My point remains, a globally meaningful address is something that
should only be applied when it is useful for that endpoint to
be globally addressable.
I think we're lucky that this point was not applied to the design
Let me see if I understand this correctly ... your wife is behind a NAT
(the receptionist) and it's causing a denial of service? :-)
close. the receptionist is an ALG.
Keith == Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let me see if I understand this correctly ... your wife is behind a NAT
(the receptionist) and it's causing a denial of service? :-)
Keith close. the receptionist is an ALG.
Application Layer Gateway. Yes. that precisely true.
Michael writes:
Families are going toward a telephone per person
with caller id and/or distinctive ring to figure
out who should answer. That sure sounds like NAT
to me!
How so? Are they all using the same telephone number?
They would take a phone number per person, but
someone there
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Caitlin writes:
If a node only requires accessibility by a
few specialized nodes (such as a water meter)
then making it *visible* to more is just
creating a security hole that has to be plugged.
Only if the information made thus available itself
Peter writes:
I can't help myself.
So I see.
Actually, having access to such stats as amount
of power used, coke consumed, late-night pizzas
ordered from the Pentagon, or number of routine
status messages transmitted from ships of a specific
call sign, can reveal a surprising amount of
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Keith writes:
.and you can tell a lot about me by
watching the temperature sensors at my house
(http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/home_temp.html)
Such as what?
Well, for starters, he lists temperature in both F and C, so he's
probably not an American. In fact,
Actually, having access to such stats as amount of power used, coke
consumed, late-night pizzas ordered from the Pentagon, or number of
routine status messages transmitted from ships of a specific call sign,
can reveal a surprising amount of detail.
entirely agree. and you can tell a lot
Keith writes:
entirely agree. and you can tell a lot about me by
watching the temperature sensors at my house
(http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/home_temp.html)
Such as what? Your home heating system cycles frequently, but that's about it.
I can't read the stuff in bright green.
Such as what?
that would be telling.
3) new devices that plug into residential networks (mostly new)
What stops the new devices from having v4 with NAT to translate between the
internet and the house.
nothing stops them, but if you want to access the devices from outside the
house (and in many cases that's the point of such
. But
perhaps I'm missing something. I'm looking for reasons why NAT/v4
cannot/will not address the needs of the new devices.
If you have a few hundred devices in your house that need to act as
peers (not clients) to devices outside, they need to be addressable.
[we could have a digression on my choice
That's exactly why you want NAT/firewalling and other existing
mechanisms.
Red herring alert: firewalling and NAT are orthogonal. Many NATs include
a firewall, but that's a market decision, not a technical necessity.
These are devices that do not require global addressability.
Think water
IPv6 needs to be justified on the number of nodes that truly need a
globally accessible public address, not by insisting on counting devices
that should remain anonymous or under limited (and controlled) visibility.
you appear to be confusing visibility with accessibility.
Caitlin Bestler wrote:
IPv6 needs to be justified on the number of nodes that truly need a
globally accessible public address, not by insisting on counting devices
that should remain anonymous or under limited (and controlled) visibility.
you appear to be confusing visibility with
Devices that are meant to be local-use only can use local scope
addresses.
the whole concept of a local-use-only device is somewhat odd.
how can the device manufacturer make assumptions about his customers'
network topology? or about the placement of security threats relative
to that
*
* My point remains, a globally meaningful address is something that
* should only be applied when it is useful for that endpoint to
* be globally addressable.
*
That sounds like an appealing statement, but it hides the potential
cost of giving up generality. Back when TCP/IP was
... There are cases
where an application context calls for local scope addresses (like I may
not want my light switch available outside the home), but that is
exactly why IPv6 provides local link site scope addresses. If you have
a device that is being used in a local scope application context
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Rinka Singh wrote:
Any NAT would be able to translate both ways - OK it would stumble if
there was end-to-end encryption but a small device may not have
encryption capability. It should be easy to add NAT (one would need a
router, firewall, gateway/gatekeeper anyway).
Caitlin writes:
That's exactly why you want NAT/firewalling and
other existing mechanisms. These are devices
that do not require global addressability. In
fact they SHOULD NOT be globally addressable.
That's exactly why you only need one telephone per family. These are people who
don't
John Stracke writes:
Utility companies would love to be able to stop
sending out expensive humans just to read one
dial at each customer each month.
Where I live, they already have. The new meters are individually addressable
and will report the consumption they record on demand from a
Caitlin writes:
If a node only requires accessibility by a
few specialized nodes (such as a water meter)
then making it *visible* to more is just
creating a security hole that has to be plugged.
Only if the information made thus available itself constitutes a security
breach, which is not
Keith writes:
the whole concept of a local-use-only device is
somewhat odd. how can the device manufacturer
make assumptions about his customers' network
topology?
Imagine where we would be if this assumption were made in the assignment of MAC
addresses for Ethernet cards. The Net would
of such devices) then NAT gets
in the way.
Keith
That's exactly why you want NAT/firewalling and other existing mechanisms.
These are devices that do not require global addressability. In fact they
SHOULD NOT be globally addressable.
IPv6 needs to be justified on the number of nodes that truly
That's exactly why you want NAT/firewalling and other existing mechanisms.
These are devices that do not require global addressability. In fact they
SHOULD NOT be globally addressable.
first, don't confuse NAT with firewalls.they have entirely separate
functions which often happen
IPv6 needs to be justified on the number of nodes that truly need a
globally accessible public address, not by insisting on counting devices
that should remain anonymous or under limited (and controlled) visibility.
you appear to be confusing visibility with accessibility.
No, that
At 12:19 AM 11/12/2001 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
How does the fact that they are somewhat unrelated issues in any way refute
the criticism of IPv6 regarding its lack of a solution to routing issues?
The list of items to criticize is far longer than just the item you cite.
For example if we
does the rendezvous location really have to be the original topological
location of the host or is that just how folks started thinking about it?
and given that the rendezvous location has to be somewhere in the network,
how can we get around the problem that that location might become
At 12:46 AM -0500 11/12/01, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
Needless to say, the sight of IPv6 proponents ranting about how nobody has
ever come up with a fully specified way to do [ID/locator separation],
while the protocol they are defending contains, apparently unbeknown to
them, the perfect
From: Steve Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is kind of a ways from my original point, which was simply griping about
this continued irritating claim that there's no fully worked out example of
separating location and identity, but what the heck...
Way back in June of 1992 on the
Date:Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:27:58 -0500
From:J. Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I'm a bit puzzled as to how you can agree that the location and identity of
| the mobile node ... [has] been unlinked, but still argue that the two
|
| However, to come up with an architecture which has separate concepts of
| identity and location, there can't be any direct relationship between them
| at all (other than mapping through some kind of database).
Well, it's sufficient to have the identity not be dependent upon the
location.
Erik Nordmark writes:
| A locator by definition must describe a precise location within
| a network, such that any router will be able to forward traffic
| towards that network using only the information in locator.
|
| Towards the network/link or towards the node?
Sorry, imprecise wording
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Perry E. Metzger writes:
J. Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My own feeling is that we're just going to have to accept the notion
of our routers having millions of routes in them and go for algorithms
that scale better than distance vector or path vector so
A locator by definition must describe a precise location within
a network, such that any router will be able to forward traffic
towards that network using only the information in locator.
Sean,
Towards the network/link or towards the node?
In 8+8 the top 8 bytes are just the locator for
From: Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is a school of thought that seems to believe that IPv6 is a
failure because it only solves a quite narrow although extremely
important problem -- specifically address space exhaustion.
The fact that it does not solve the
From: Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People frequently propose endpoint identifiers and routing
identifiers be separated but no one has ever come up with a worked
proposal that was less flawed than the current mechanism.
I always find it incredibly funny when IPv6
J. Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact that it does not solve the global routing table meltdown is,
according to such people, an obvious failure of v6 -- never mind that
they are unrelated issues.
How does the fact that they are somewhat unrelated issues in any
J. Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People frequently propose endpoint identifiers and routing
identifiers be separated but no one has ever come up with a worked
proposal that was less flawed than the current mechanism.
From: Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People frequently propose endpoint identifiers and routing
identifiers be separated but no one has ever come up with a worked
proposal that was less flawed than the current mechanism.
the IPv6 protocol suite contains a very
From: Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The fact that it does not solve the global routing table meltdown is,
according to such people, an obvious failure of v6 -- never mind that
they are unrelated issues.
How does the fact that they are somewhat unrelated issues in
Date:Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:14:06 -0500
From:J. Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I was merely pointing out that your catechismic canard about no fully
| worked out example of separating location and identity is ludicrous
| on its
J. Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
??? I said nothing about Mobile IPv6 being a solution to the routing problem.
We were talking about the routing problem. If you just brought it up
to be clever (which I assume you did), you didn't further the
discussion.
Lets deal with the situation
701 - 800 of 941 matches
Mail list logo
