Re: dynamic keying via 802.1X on IETF wireless

Interestingly, on the .1X SSID, I get 14 % loss and delays up to 8000 ms (!). The open SSID is about 0 % loss (didn't wait for the first loss long enough) and 60 ms on average. Just a data point why I'm back in the open net. Gruesse, Carsten ___ Ietf m

Re: dynamic keying via 802.1X on IETF wireless

On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 11:29:09PM -0400, Karen O'Donoghue wrote: > Folks, > > While I realize there are only hours left, I have decided to > forward these directions anyway. > > PEAP is working now, with a username/password of ietf60/ietf60. > > So, a configuration how-to : > > From the Start

Re: dynamic keying via 802.1X on IETF wireless

Click on the bubble, and enter "ietf60" for both the username and password. (Leave the Domain field blank.) Finally, select Ok, and you should now be authenticated. Karen O'Donoghue wrote: Folks, We are experimenting with dynamic keying via 802.1X on the IETF wireless network. You a

dynamic keying via 802.1X on IETF wireless

Folks, We are experimenting with dynamic keying via 802.1X on the IETF wireless network. You are invited to try this service if you wish. However, this isn't production so please do not ask for assistance from the terminal room help desk staff. Help is available from the following (dependi

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

RJ Atkinson wrote: > > At 16:15 29/06/00 , Joe Touch wrote: > > >DS appears to be better for large, flat spaces (largely 2-dimensional, > >under 3 stories tall, since transcievers on the middle floor largely > >cover the upper and lower). > > > >FH is better for more spherical spaces (largely

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

At 16:15 29/06/00 , Joe Touch wrote: >DS appears to be better for large, flat spaces (largely 2-dimensional, >under 3 stories tall, since transcievers on the middle floor largely >cover the upper and lower). > >FH is better for more spherical spaces (largely 3-dimensional). These optimisations d

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

"Theodore Y. Ts'o" wrote: > >Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:22:32 -0400 >From: RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Actually, IETF has made IEEE 802.11-DSSS the convention for wireless >LANs at all IETF meetings for some time now. This has been supported >at least at Oslo, DC, A

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

>Or you can use *one* bullet, and watch the other 99 devices get disconnected >very quickly ;) > >For some reason, my manager hasn't approved this technique as a cost-cutting >move - I'm not sure why... ;) I think the ammo manufacturers have a pretty strong lobby. RGF Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP =

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

Its very likely that within a year, almost all cellular phones will have BT in them. The interference issues between 802.11 and BT are a problem. BT tends to win in this battle. So, BT is something folks will probably need to learn to live with. begin:vcard n:Neumiller;Phillip tel;pager:[EMAIL

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:11:29 EDT, John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Don't be silly. We can't kill people for that. We'll shoot the *devices*. If 100 people buy offending devices, you use 100 bullets right away. And that only solves the problem until they find a way to contact .Real

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

Randy Bush wrote: > > OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting. What > > will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices? AFAIK, they > > operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices emit enough noise > > to seriously hamper 802.11 operation! > >

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:22:32 -0400 From: RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Actually, IETF has made IEEE 802.11-DSSS the convention for wireless LANs at all IETF meetings for some time now. This has been supported at least at Oslo, DC, Adelaide, (and will be at Pittsburgh). It

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED] crosoft.com>, Christian Huitema writes: >OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting. What >will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices? AFAIK, they >operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices emit enough noise to

RE: IETF Wireless LAN history

> OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting. > What will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices? > AFAIK, they operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices > emit enough noise to seriously hamper 802.11 operation! Right, that was why Dan brou

RE: IETF Wireless LAN history

> OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting. What > will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices? AFAIK, they > operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices emit enough noise > to seriously hamper 802.11 operation! simple, we take them out and

RE: IETF Wireless LAN history

OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting. What will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices? AFAIK, they operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices emit enough noise to seriously hamper 802.11 operation! Christian Huitema

RE: IETF Wireless LAN history

At 09:54 29/06/00 , Dan Kohn wrote: >I will bite regarding one issue near and dear to IETF hearts -- which is the >seeming need to buy yet another 802.11 card for each IETF meeting. And yes, >I am actually suggesting an approach that would require one more purchase: Actually, IETF has m

Re: IETF Wireless

Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:29:07 +0200 (CEST) Randy Bush writes: | actually it might be a feature to torture the anti-nat bigots Maybe they wouldn't notice. Anyone using Kerberos will notice, I guarant

Re: IETF Wireless

At 9:36 AM -0400 on 5/27/00, Jon Malis wrote: >>- It has no way to add extenal antennas to boost signal. > > You can, it just requires making a small "incision" in its side and a > voided warranty. (See: http://www.macintouch.com/airportantenna.html > For More Info) This echoes our experiences

Re: IETF Wireless

I Think That Ole J. Jacobsen Wrote In An eMail At 1:13 PM -0700 of 5/26/00: >- It has no way to add extenal antennas to boost signal. You can, it just requires making a small "incision" in its side and a voided warranty. (See: http://www.macintouch.com/airportantenna.html For More Info) >Now

Re: IETF Wireless

I Think That Roger Fajman Wrote In An eMail At 4:58 PM -0400 of 5/26/00: > > These are absolutely standard 11Mb/s IEEE 802.11DS base stations, not > > some proprietary Apple thing. PC users can get 802.11DS cards from > > companies like Lucent: > >Is there a way to tu

Re: IETF Wireless

I Think That Derrell D. Piper Wrote In An eMail At 1:44 PM -0700 of 5/26/00: > > - You need a Macintosh to configure it > >There is a Windows-based configuration utility that I've seen used to >configure the Airport sucessfully. See the "Karlbridge configurator for >Windows" link on the page li

Re: IETF Wireless

I Think That I Wrote In An eMail At 7:08 PM -0400 of 5/26/00: >I Think That Roger Fajman Wrote In An eMail At 4:58 PM -0400 of 5/26/00: >> >>We've had trouble here with PCs using them because the NAT implementation >>doesn't handle NETBIOS. Also, given the general dislike of many people >>in the

Re: IETF Wireless

Randy Bush writes: | actually it might be a feature to torture the anti-nat bigots Maybe they wouldn't notice. Sean.

Re: IETF Wireless

>> Is there a way to turn off the NAT in the AirPort access points? > if not, seems like that would be a showstopper. actually it might be a feature to torture the anti-nat bigots

Re: IETF Wireless

> Is there a way to turn off the NAT in the AirPort access points? Yes, there is. Derrell

Re: IETF Wireless

I'm getting a flood of individual questions here, so I'll stem the flow by answering them publicly: >That would be great. Will they sell them at a discount to the rest of us? The current retail price of $300 is already a "discount" price. For that price you get 11Mb/s wireless, 10Mb/s Ethernet

Re: IETF Wireless

> Is there a way to turn off the NAT in the AirPort access points? if not, seems like that would be a showstopper.

Re: IETF Wireless

On Fri, 26 May 2000, Stuart Cheshire wrote: > These are absolutely standard 11Mb/s IEEE 802.11DS base stations, not > some proprietary Apple thing. PC users can get 802.11DS cards from > companies like Lucent: I can vouch for this; they work 100% fine with the Norte

Re: IETF Wireless

> There's a good chance I may be able to persuade Apple to donate a bunch > of 11Mb/s IEEE 802.11 Wireless/Ethernet bridges (the things we call > "AirPort") to IETF, on a permanent basis, for the meetings. > > Any interest? How many would we want? A couple for the terminal room and > one each per

Re: IETF Wireless

> I can verify that this is true, so true in fact that if you take an > AirPort station apart you will find a Lucent Silver WaveLAN card inside. > Only downside with AiPort is: Also, this page: http://www.msrl.com/airport-gold/ ...has information about upgrading an Airport to a Lucent Gol

Re: IETF Wireless

"...not some proprietary Apple thing." I can verify that this is true, so true in fact that if you take an AirPort station apart you will find a Lucent Silver WaveLAN card inside. Only downside with AiPort is: - You need a Macintosh to configure it - It has no way to add extenal antennas to b

IETF Wireless

There's a good chance I may be able to persuade Apple to donate a bunch of 11Mb/s IEEE 802.11 Wireless/Ethernet bridges (the things we call "AirPort") to IETF, on a permanent basis, for the meetings. Any interest? How many would we want? A couple for the terminal room and one each per meeting

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

Just to close the loop (and since everyone keeps asking me) my poor old Wavelan Turbo Bronze card now works just fine here in Adelaide, without my having to install any new firmware or drivers. Thanks to all, especially the terminal room/wireless net support folks, for making this work. - RL "

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

Correction... According to the vendor's tech folks, the overnight problem was ultimately that... * they assumed, or were told, that, if they were lending or selling a hugh number of cards, nothing would be on the system besides their (new, up-to-date) cards. Consequently, the beacons were confi

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

Based on my observations and some discussions with the local supplier... There was a beacon-side problem yesterday that impacted (flash-updated) Bronze (and white) cards. They flashed some of the beacons last night, but the software they used didn't fix the problem. They flashed them again thi

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

As a followup: it looks like Atsushi-san was correct. The statement in the Lucent documentation (about the network operating in the maximum common speed) apparently refers to each card-pair, and to the network in terms of token-acquisition latency. Thanks to the connect.com people for clearing th

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Atsushi Onoe writes: > >It is not accurate. An 11Mbps card will still be able to communicate >with an access point in 11Mbps if the signal strength is enough. >But total network throughput will decrease since the communication >between the access point ant the a 2

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

> mbps Silver card that didn't work.According to Angelos, if there is > a single 2 mbps card in the radio network, the entire network falls back > to 2 mbps, It is not accurate. An 11Mbps card will still be able to communicate with an access point in 11Mbps if the signal strength is enough.

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

--On Monday, 27 March, 2000 21:53 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The current theory is that the wavelan access points are configred not > to fall back to 2mbps operation. Matt Blaze reported that he had a 2 > mbps Silver card that didn't work.According to Angelos, if there is > a single

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

[ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ][ Date: 21:53 (-0500), Mar 27, 2000 ] > If someone has datapoints to prove or disprove this > particular theory, do speak up, but from what we were > able to determine last night, this seems to be what's > going on. > >

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Randy Bush writes: >> I had the identical problem with my bronze card (flash briefly). I got one >> of the silver cards and plugged it in, and it just worked with my existing >> Bronze 4.0 driver and application. I didn't need to update either the >> silver car

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

[ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ][ Date: 11:04 (+0930), Mar 28, 2000 ] > a number of folk spent some time swaping (recently > flashed) cards. silver was the only thing that > worked. I do not think just swapping will help. I have one of the old cards. And after updating my "old" bronze c

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

The current theory is that the wavelan access points are configred not to fall back to 2mbps operation. Matt Blaze reported that he had a 2 mbps Silver card that didn't work.According to Angelos, if there is a single 2 mbps card in the radio network, the entire network falls back to 2 mbps,

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

> I had the identical problem with my bronze card (flash briefly). I got one > of the silver cards and plugged it in, and it just worked with my existing > Bronze 4.0 driver and application. I didn't need to update either the > silver card firmware or the driver SW. This is on NT 4.0. a num

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

For another data point ... I had the identical problem with my bronze card (flash briefly). I got one of the silver cards and plugged it in, and it just worked with my existing Bronze 4.0 driver and application. I didn't need to update either the silver card firmware or the driver SW. This

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

[ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ][ Date: 22:31 (+0930), Mar 27, 2000 ] > > I hate to bug the list with this, but I suspect I may > not be the only one with this problem. > > I brought with me to IETF 47 a WaveLAN Turbo Bronze > wireless card which I use daily in my office at h

Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

> I brought with me to IETF 47 a WaveLAN Turbo Bronze wireless card which I > use daily in my office at home, but it doesn't appear to work with the > WaveLAN-Silver-based wireless net here (the LEDs flash briefly as though > it's not finding the named network). as far as a bunch of us can tell,

WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?

I hate to bug the list with this, but I suspect I may not be the only one with this problem. I brought with me to IETF 47 a WaveLAN Turbo Bronze wireless card which I use daily in my office at home, but it doesn't appear to work with the WaveLAN-Silver-based wireless net here (the LEDs flash bri

Re: MBone on the IETF wireless LAN?

At 03:34 PM 11/8/99 -0500, you wrote: >I notice that the wireless LAN at the Washington DC IETF meeting is not >connected to the MBone. Was this just an oversight, or was there a >deliberate reason for not connecting the MBone? It was initially on, however its use was causing some prett

Re: MBone on the IETF wireless LAN?

At 15:34 08.11.99 -0500, Ross Finlayson wrote: >I notice that the wireless LAN at the Washington DC IETF meeting is not >connected to the MBone. Was this just an oversight, or was there a >deliberate reason for not connecting the MBone? Former experiences have indicated that feeding a couple of h

Re: MBone on the IETF wireless LAN?

> I notice that the wireless LAN at the Washington DC IETF meeting is not > connected to the MBone. Was this just an oversight, or was there a > deliberate reason for not connecting the MBone? the wireless tends to be unable to handle the traffic. see the id draft-ymbk-termroom-op-02.txt

MBone on the IETF wireless LAN?

I notice that the wireless LAN at the Washington DC IETF meeting is not connected to the MBone. Was this just an oversight, or was there a deliberate reason for not connecting the MBone? Ross.