-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Franck == Franck Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Franck My question, how can we deployed WiFi networks in town for global
Franck roaming with SIP phones when the IETF itself has trouble to
Franck deploy it...
Franck Is there something wrong
I have a similar opinion ...
I believe that the terminal room, with wired connectivity, is no longer needed. But
the terminal room, as a place with tables, is very convenient (but still using
wireless).
We can save in the cost of the wired network, and the cost of the security to keep
that
Michael Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Franck == Franck Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Franck My question, how can we deployed WiFi networks in town for global
Franck roaming with SIP phones when the IETF itself has trouble to
Franck deploy it...
Franck Is there
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:53:09 +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that the terminal room, with wired connectivity, is no
longer needed. But the terminal room, as a place with tables, is very
I disagree here. Having a _stable_ (fallback) network access, especially when
Perry E.Metzger wrote:
Michael Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Franck == Franck Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Franck My question, how can we deployed WiFi networks in town for global
Franck roaming with SIP phones when the IETF itself has trouble to
Franck
An alternative is to ask for some tables in all the meeting
rooms. This was actually quite useful in Vienna.
I found it disturbing that people in meeting rooms were sitting
with their backs to the meeting. We should NOT do that agin
(in my perosnal opinion)
Bert
Sorry, you're right: The collocation of the tables in Vienna was not good, because
they where in the walls ... instead, I still like tables, but collocated in normal
rows.
I've used this scheme in some conferences, instead of all with tables or all with just
chairs, half and half.
Regards,
The point is that WLAN should be warranted to work, first.
Actually, in my last 2-3 IETFs (my be more, but not sure), I never used the wired
connectivity. The WLAN in the terminal room was excellent.
Regards,
Jordi
- Original Message -
From: Roland Bless [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JORDI
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 04:39:03PM +0100, Roland Bless allegedly wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:53:09 +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that the terminal room, with wired connectivity, is no
longer needed. But the terminal room, as a place with tables, is
very
On 18-nov-03, at 15:56, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
The fact that 802.11 tries to be
reliable by doing its own retransmits results in massive congestive
collapse when a protocol like TCP is run over it.
Hardly. TCP plays nice and slows down when either the RTTs go up or
there is packet loss (which
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 18-nov-03, at 15:56, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
The fact that 802.11 tries to be
reliable by doing its own retransmits results in massive congestive
collapse when a protocol like TCP is run over it.
Hardly. TCP plays nice and slows down when
I already indicated before: 100-150 Euros more is not a big issue.
My time retrying my connection hundreds of times during a week cost much more and my
productivity and concentration goes low. I'm sure is the same for a lot of people !
Regards,
Jordi
- Original Message -
From: Scott W
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:45:22AM -0500, Scott W Brim wrote:
Fairly soon, all relevant hotels will offer their own wireless access,
as well as connectivity from your room, and from suites, as a fallback.
Also, in a meeting, one can pass CDs or USB thingies around. Risk of
serious long-term
Perry;
Radio links like this are simply too unreliable to run
without additional protection: TCP isn't equipped to operate in
environments with double digit packet loss percentages.
I agree with you, Iljitsch.
A protocol that had been tuned for use with TCP would have been fine
-- heavy FEC and
the hhonors ap's at the hilton were nat-ed and behind a business
cable-modem that's about average for the hotels I've seen... you won't
find to many hotels with ds3's and /19s worth of address-space. if
enough peopel fall back on the hotel you'll melt it...
joelja
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Tim
Keith,
Maybe that's the real problem - people think they are paying for the
wireless network as part of the conference fee, when the reality (as I
understand it) is that a substantial part of the cost of the wireless
network comes from sponsors, donors, and/or volunteers.
The network (i.e.,
I have a similar opinion ...
I believe that the terminal room, with wired connectivity, is no
longer needed.
My experience last week was otherwise. There were times at which the only
reliable connectivity I could find (well, in a smoke-free area, anyway)
was via a wired network connection.
Fairly soon, all relevant hotels will offer their own wireless access,
as well as connectivity from your room, and from suites, as a
fallback.
if your hotel is a few blocks (or habitrail tunnels) away then the
overhead of obtaining fallback access (from your room, or if limited to
registered
I already indicated before: 100-150 Euros more is not a big issue.
I strongly and emphatically disagree, and I strongly object to attempts to
use of increased meeting feeds to discourage some parties from participating
at IETF. Basically this kind of fee increase is completely and absolutely
On 18-nov-03, at 19:48, Keith Moore wrote:
I already indicated before: 100-150 Euros more is not a big issue.
I strongly and emphatically disagree, and I strongly object to
attempts to
use of increased meeting feeds to discourage some parties from
participating
at IETF. Basically this kind of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Iljitsch van Beijn
um writes:
On 18-nov-03, at 19:48, Keith Moore wrote:
I already indicated before: 100-150 Euros more is not a big issue.
I strongly and emphatically disagree, and I strongly object to
attempts to
use of increased meeting feeds to discourage
On 18-nov-03, at 23:44, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Maybe this would be a good time to explain what the IETF needs a 9.33
person secretariat for, and why the secretariat must be entirely
funded
by meeting fees.
The Secretariat handles I-D processing, meeting planning, IESG
telechats, software
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
As long as we're bitching about the network: would it be possible to
start doing some unicast streaming of sessions in the future? Access to
multicast hasn't gotten significantly better the past decade, but
streaming over unicast is now
I have no first-hand information on how much time this costs
So I'll dream up what I think the right number of people should be!
I think part of the blame should go to the access points that kept
disappearing. Someone told me this was because the AP transmitters were
set to just 1 mw. If this
At 07:38 PM 11/18/2003, Eliot Lear wrote:
I have no first-hand information on how much time this costs
So I'll dream up what I think the right number of people should be!
I think part of the blame should go to the access points that kept
disappearing. Someone told me this was because the AP
On 19-nov-03, at 1:38, Eliot Lear wrote:
I think part of the blame should go to the access points that kept
disappearing. Someone told me this was because the AP transmitters
were set to just 1 mw. If this is true, it was obviously a very big
mistake.
Oh really?! Please explain why.
Ok,
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:38:12 -0800, Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As long as we're bitching about the network: would it be possible to
start doing some unicast streaming of sessions in the future? Access
to multicast hasn't gotten significantly better the past decade, but
streaming
Umm, having worked for a different standards organization (the OSF and The
Open Group) and being somewhat familiar with their current operations,
now, I can say the following:
Back when I worked at OSF, it had about 325 employees and some additional
number of sabbaticals and contractors not
28 matches
Mail list logo
