just a small comment: As far as I understand AP isolation doesn't work
if you don't have a WLAN controller but do have more than one APs. E.g. in
the following setup
ap1--sw1--sw2--ap2
with AP isolation turned on, clients associated to ap1 cannot
communicate directly with other
Second, in the hotspot scenarios where this is likely to be a problem
(in IPv4 -or- IPv6) it's addressed by the AP isolation feature
that's getting close to omnipresent even in the low end APs. With this
feature enabled, stations are not allowed to talk to each other over
the wlan; they can
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 3:50 PM, JÁKÓ András jako.and...@eik.bme.hu wrote:
Second, in the hotspot scenarios where this is likely to be a problem
(in IPv4 -or- IPv6) it's addressed by the AP isolation feature
that's getting close to omnipresent even in the low end APs. With this
feature
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
William Herrin wrote:
that's getting close to omnipresent even in the low end APs. With this
feature enabled, stations are not allowed to talk to each other over
the wlan; they can only talk to hosts on the
William Herrin wrote:
You are saying to disable DAD, which is a violation of SLAAC.
We do that on some wired ethernets too.
You are calling such a link Ethernet. OK. Fine.
The Cisco configuration
command is switchport protected. It helps control virus outbreaks if
machines designated
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Tony Hain wrote:
where an IPv6 multicast RA allows all the devices to
configure based on reception of a single packet.
You miss multicast storm caused by DAD.
This is a long solved issue.
First, it
William Herrin wrote:
You miss multicast storm caused by DAD.
Second, in the hotspot scenarios where this is likely to be a problem
(in IPv4 -or- IPv6) it's addressed by the AP isolation feature
As you stated
: I think Masataka meant to say (and said previously) that the DHCP
: request from
David Miller wrote:
So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal manner would be
enough to declare IPv4 not operational?
For example?
Masataka Ohta
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
David Miller wrote:
So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal manner would be
enough to declare IPv4 not operational?
For example?
Heavy reliance on broadcast for a wide range of
- Original Message -
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
My point is that blaming union contracts or union anything for being
unable to find a place to hold a convention where you can implement
the network you want to implement is nonsense. NANOG, ARIN and IETF
conferences have all
- Original Message -
From: Rick Alfvin ralf...@verilan.com
Verilan is the exclusive network services provider for NANOG, IEEE
802, IETF, ICANN, ZigBee Alliance, MAAWG, OIF, GENIVI, Tizen and many
other technical organizations. We deploy large temporary networks to
provide high
On 9/20/12 9:52 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I'm quite certain I have a good idea of the magnitude of what you'd
charge for professional services for such work, and I would expect it
to be 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than what a Worldcon Concom could
afford to pay. :-) I would also be very
-Original Message-
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:21 PM
To: David Miller
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
David Miller wrote:
So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal
TJ wrote:
So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal manner would be
enough to declare IPv4 not operational?
For example?
Heavy reliance on broadcast for a wide range of instances where the
traffic is really only destined for a single node would seem to be rather
sub-optimal.
Tony Hain wrote:
So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal manner would be
enough to declare IPv4 not operational?
For example?
Your own example ---
... that a very crowded train arrives at a station and all the smart
phones of passengers try to connect to APs ...
IPv4
Op 18-9-2012 22:50, William Herrin schreef:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 18/09/2012 21:24, William Herrin wrote:
IPv6 falls down compared to IPv4 on wifi networks when it responds to a
router solicitation with a multicast (instead of unicast) router
William Herrin wrote:
Unicast since its responding to a solicitation?
RFC4861 states:
A router MAY choose to unicast the
response directly to the soliciting host's address (if the
solicitation's source address is not the unspecified address), but
the usual case is to
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 01:03:00PM -0700
Quoting Jo Rhett (jrh...@netconsonance.com):
On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I'm talking to the people who will probably be, in 2015, running the first
Worldcon I can practically drive
Seth Mos wrote:
Yes, radvd has a configuration option to send unicast packets. But I
think the effects are slightly overstated.
A senario considered by IEEE11ai is that a very crowded train
arrives at a station and all the smart phones of passengers
try to connect to APs.
Then, it is
SNIP
The only thing operators have to know about IPv6 is that IPv6, as is
currently specified, is not operational.
I think it is safe to say that this is provably false.
Are there opportunities for increased efficiency, perhaps ... however:
I get native IPv6 at home via my standard
On Sep 19, 2012, at 04:25, Masataka Ohta wrote:
As I already stated, DHCP discover/request from STA to AP is
unicast.
This didn't sound right, so I decided to test. With the three clients
available to me (laptop running OS X 10.7.4, phone running Android 4.0, and
iPod running iOS 4.1.2) all
Sean Harlow wrote:
As I already stated, DHCP discover/request from STA to AP is
unicast.
This didn't sound right, so I decided to test.
Your test is invalid.
With the three
clients available to me (laptop running OS X 10.7.4, phone
running Android 4.0, and iPod running iOS 4.1.2) all
TJ wrote:
The only thing operators have to know about IPv6 is that IPv6, as is
currently specified, is not operational.
I think it is safe to say that this is provably false.
You failed to do so.
Are there opportunities for increased efficiency, perhaps ... however:
Congestion collapse is
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 06:54:35 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
Sean Harlow wrote:
As I already stated, DHCP discover/request from STA to AP is
unicast.
This didn't sound right, so I decided to test.
Your test is invalid.
You forgot to include a .jpg of Darth Vader playing bagpipes on a
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Sean Harlow s...@seanharlow.info wrote:
On Sep 19, 2012, at 04:25, Masataka Ohta wrote:
As I already stated, DHCP discover/request from STA to AP is
unicast.
This didn't sound right, so I decided to test. With the three clients
available to me (laptop
William Herrin wrote:
I think Masataka meant to say (and said previously) that the DHCP
request from the wifi station is, like all packets from the wifi
station to the AP, subject to wifi's layer 2 error recovery. It's not
unicast but its subject to error recovery anyway.
Mostly correct.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
A single counter example is enough to deny IPv6 operational.
Really?
If that is really your opinion, the entire conversation is a rather moot
point as I believe you and pretty much the rest of the world
TJ wrote:
A single counter example is enough to deny IPv6 operational.
Really?
With the Internet wide scope, yes, of course.
In general, as IPv6 was designed to make ND uber Alles,
not IP uber Alles, and ND was designed by a committee with
only ATM, Ethernet and PPP in mind, ND can not be an
On 9/19/2012 11:33 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
TJ wrote:
A single counter example is enough to deny IPv6 operational.
Really?
With the Internet wide scope, yes, of course.
So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal manner would be
enough to declare IPv4 not operational?
Reductio
William Herrin wrote:
OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS
for DAD, for example.
Worse, minimum intervals of ND messages are often very large,
which means a lot of delay occurs when a message is lost.
Hi Masataka,
Where do things go wrong?
OTOH, IPv6
On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I'm talking to the people who will probably be, in 2015, running the first
Worldcon I can practically drive to, in Orlando, at -- I think -- the Disney
World Resort. I've told them how critical the issue is for this market; they,
predictably,
On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Tech had a person managing the feed to DragonCon from the dedicated
room w/ the polycomm video conference system, for panels, in addition
to the actual union operator of the camera such.
The camera ops had to be union? Hmmm. Ah, Chicago.
On Sep 14, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
That's an interesting question indeed. The optimal solution here, of
course, would be for Worldcons -- which are planned 3-4 years in advance --
to get the right technical people in the loop with the property to see
when in the next 2 years
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
William Herrin wrote:
In IPv6, the station sends an ICMPv6 router solicitation instead of an
ARP for the default gateway. This is a multicast message but since
it's from the station to the AP it's subject to
On 18/09/2012 21:24, William Herrin wrote:
IPv6 falls down compared to IPv4 on wifi networks when it responds to a
router solicitation with a multicast (instead of unicast) router
advertisement.
You mean it has one extra potential failure mode in situations where radio
retransmission doesn't
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Tech had a person managing the feed to DragonCon from the dedicated
room w/ the polycomm video conference system, for panels, in addition
to the actual union operator of
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 18/09/2012 21:24, William Herrin wrote:
IPv6 falls down compared to IPv4 on wifi networks when it responds to a
router solicitation with a multicast (instead of unicast) router
advertisement.
You mean it has one extra
not
want to join the union.
Steven Naslund
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:48 PM
To: Jo Rhett
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com
wrote:
On Sep 14
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
The trick is that there is no right to work if you are a guest at the
hotel. You have no right to work on their property without their
consent. In reality, the hotels do not want union headaches so that is
the way it
NOTE: None of the following content can be typed into your router. It holds
information only slightly relevant to networking.
On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:47 PM, William Herrin wrote:
That has been true everywhere that Worldcon has been for a
number of years, excluding Japan. Hotel union contracts
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:47:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Tech had a person managing the feed to DragonCon from
On Sep 18, 2012, at 2:38 PM, William Herrin wrote:
IIRC when the Democatic National Convention was held in Denver in
2008, they had to strike a special deal with the venue to bring in
union labor instead of the normal workers because they couldn't find a
suitable place that was already union.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
Not being aware of which states have this law, it's entirely possible that
the intersection between states that have this law and states which have
enough scifi fans willing to get together to host a worldcon is
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote:
'Right to work', as defined by section 14 B of the Taft-Hartley Act, only
prevents a union contract that requiures union membership as a PRE-REQUISITE
for being hired. What is called 'closed shop' -- where
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 2:38 PM, William Herrin wrote:
IIRC when the Democatic National Convention was held in Denver in
2008, they had to strike a special deal with the venue to bring in
union labor instead of the normal
Anyone from nanog currently at the wheel of the conference network at
Dreamforce in San Francisco (nearly 7 attendees)?
It appears that all of the suggestions posted to this nanog thread so far
were thoroughly ignored. Conference WiFi is effectively unusable, despite
the very visible,
There were enough fans among the 600,000 folks in the Baltimore area
but not enough an hour away among the 5,600,000 in the National
Capital Region to justify hosting a Worldcon a couple miles inside the
Virginia border where no unions would get in your way? Really?
Having grown up and
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 2:38 PM, William Herrin wrote:
IIRC when the Democatic National Convention was held in Denver in
2008, they had to strike a special deal with the venue to bring in
union labor instead of the normal
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:04:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
wrote:
'Right to work', as defined by section 14 B of the Taft-Hartley Act,
only prevents a union
...@herrin.us
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:04:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
wrote:
'Right to work', as defined by section 14 B of the Taft-Hartley Act,
only prevents a union contract that requiures union membership
So I just want to point out that this is an utterly irrelevant
topic. Worldcon is full to the brim with really smart people who can
build good networks, but in every place large enough to host a
Worldcon the owners of the building make money selling Internet access
and don't want competition.
On 17/09/2012 00:42, Masataka Ohta wrote:
OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS
for DAD, for example.
Worse, minimum intervals of ND messages are often very large,
which means a lot of delay occurs when a message is lost.
So, what you're saying here is that a wifi
Nick Hilliard wrote:
OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS
for DAD, for example.
Worse, minimum intervals of ND messages are often very large,
which means a lot of delay occurs when a message is lost.
So, what you're saying here is that a wifi network with lots of
* joe...@bogus.com (joel jaeggli) [Sun 16 Sep 2012, 18:42 CEST]:
We tend to engineer for a maximum of around 50 associations per radio
(not AP). beyond that performance really starts to suck which can be
measured along a multitude of dimensions. The most visible one to the
client(s) being
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
ARP and DHCP usually work.
For an unusual case of ARP for other STAs, collisions do
increase initial latencies, but as refreshes are attempted
several times, there will be no latter latencies.
OTOH, IPv6
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 01:11:54PM -0500
Quoting Jimmy Hess (mysi...@gmail.com):
On 9/15/12, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Mans Nilsson wrote:
I am not suggesting that. I'm just trying to point out that there
might
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:15:26PM -0400
Quoting Eric Adler (eapt...@gmail.com):
Are you working with locally originated video or video that originates as
DVB-T?
I'm looking at a similar project to replace NTSC distribution around the
facility where I
- Original Message -
From: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Jay Ashworth wrote:
You're saying that *receiving* multicast streams over WLAN works
poorly?
Multicast/broadcast over congested WLAN works poorly, because
there can be no ACK.
That is,
- Original Message -
From: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya gau...@lahai.com
So you're *REALLY* motivated on this reduce the coverage thing,
then.
you could say yes :), reduce the coverage per-AP. Most APs I have seen
will start failing with about ~100 associations and not to forget
about
On 9/16/12 9:24 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya gau...@lahai.com
So you're *REALLY* motivated on this reduce the coverage thing,
then.
you could say yes :), reduce the coverage per-AP. Most APs I have seen
will start failing with about ~100
On 14/09/2012 12:38, Paul Thornton wrote:
Veering slightly off-topic for NANOG, but is this worth taking onto the
address policy mailing list ahead of RIPE65 to ensure people who aren't in
the WG session are aware of the issue - and can therefore support (or
question) any proposed changes?
I
Jay Ashworth wrote:
Well, yes, but that wasn't what Bill was talking about. He was talking about
AP's being nice to associated clients who are in powersave mode, at the
expensive of all the other connected clients, by buffering multicast packets
until one or more DTIM frames are sent.
I
On 16/09/2012 19:30, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Thus, protocols heavily depending on broadcast/multicast, such
as ND, will suffer.
ok, you've trolled me enough to ask why ND is worse than ARP on a wavelan
network - in your humble opinion?
Nick
Nick Hilliard wrote:
Thus, protocols heavily depending on broadcast/multicast, such
as ND, will suffer.
ok, you've trolled me enough to ask why ND is worse than ARP on a wavelan
network - in your humble opinion?
Because, with IPv4:
1) broadcast/multicast from a STA attacked to an
Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp:
Nick Hilliard wrote:
Thus, protocols heavily depending on broadcast/multicast, such
as ND, will suffer.
ok, you've trolled me enough to ask why ND is worse than ARP on a wavelan
network - in your humble opinion?
Because, with IPv4:
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:40:02AM -0400
Quoting Jay Ashworth (j...@baylink.com):
- Original Message -
From: Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
12:20:33AM -0700 Quoting Octavio Alvarez (alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org):
I'd have expected
On 13 Sep 2012, at 17:32, Tim Franklin t...@pelican.org wrote:
You'll need a beefy NAT box. Linux with Xeon CPU and 4GB RAM minimum.
Or not. The CCC presentation is showing *real* Internet for everyone, unless
I'm very much mistaken…
Absolutely. NAT is too fragile/expensive/non-performant
Mans Nilsson wrote:
Do not NAT. When all those people want to do social networking to the same
furry BBS while also frequenting three social app sites simultaneously
you are going to get Issues if you NAT. So don't.
I am not suggesting that. I'm just trying to point out that there
might be
On 9/15/12, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Mans Nilsson wrote:
I am not suggesting that. I'm just trying to point out that there
might be a bunch of assumptions that aren't as true anymore when a
lot of client connections share both source and destination address,
and
- Original Message -
From: Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
It would still be nice to multicast them inside our network (and out
to whomever wants to watch), but what the heck's the consumer-level
client side of multicast video streaming look like these days?
IIRC a number
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
You're saying that *receiving* multicast streams over WLAN works poorly?
I don't have any experience with it, but here's what Google told me:
http://www.wireless-nets.com/resources/tutorials/802.11_multicasting.html
When any
- Original Message -
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
You're saying that *receiving* multicast streams over WLAN works
poorly?
I don't have any experience with it, but here's what Google told me:
Jay Ashworth wrote:
You're saying that *receiving* multicast streams over WLAN works poorly?
Multicast/broadcast over congested WLAN works poorly, because
there can be no ACK.
That is, multicast/broadcast packets lost by collisions are
never sent again.
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:45:55 -0700, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
04:05:41PM + Quoting Dylan Bouterse (dy...@corp.power1.com):
I'm not sure if this is obvious for this list or not, but with your
WiFi
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 05:45:55PM -0400
Quoting Jay Ashworth (j...@baylink.com):
- Original Message -
At all possible cost, avoid login or encryption for the wireless.
Yes, and no.
snip
Just keep in mind that every action you make
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:20:33AM -0700
Quoting Octavio Alvarez (alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org):
I'd have expected someone to have QoS mentioned already, mainly to put
FTP and P2P traffic on the least important queues and don't hog up the
net.
As long
To all folks running NOC's at events like CCC/Assembly/DEFCON/etc: hats
off, and enjoy the fun ;)
On 2012-09-14 09:34 , Måns Nilsson wrote:
[..]
A couple hours will get the user over a lunch break if not overnight,
which means that long TCP sessions survive on Proper Computers (that
don't tear
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Get lots of IP addresses. A /16 probably still can be borrowed for
this kind of event. I know RIPE had rules and addresses for this kind of
use a couple years ago, at least.
Indeed? I did not see that coming. Hell, perhaps Interop could be talked
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Get lots of IP addresses. A /16 probably still can be borrowed for
this kind of event. I know RIPE had rules and addresses for this kind of
use a couple years ago, at least.
Indeed? I did not see that coming.
On 13/09/2012 21:32, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Get lots of IP addresses. A /16 probably still can be borrowed for this
kind of event. I know RIPE had rules and addresses for this kind of use
a couple years ago, at least.
yes, you can get a bunch of IP addresses from the ripe ncc if you only need
On 14 September 2012 11:16, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 13/09/2012 21:32, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Get lots of IP addresses. A /16 probably still can be borrowed for this
kind of event. I know RIPE had rules and addresses for this kind of use
a couple years ago, at least.
yes, you can
On 14/09/2012 11:50, Nat Morris wrote:
The RIPE hostmaster would only allocate us address space 7 days before
the event started, needed longer than this to begin building out the
network which span multiple data centres. Especially with time, access
and change freeze constraints due to the
On 14 September 2012 11:54, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 14/09/2012 11:50, Nat Morris wrote:
The RIPE hostmaster would only allocate us address space 7 days before
the event started, needed longer than this to begin building out the
network which span multiple data centres.
* Nick Hilliard
They've allocated a /14 for this purpose, so this would be well more
than enough to cope with most large conferences.
It's actually a /13 (151.216.0.0/13).
--
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
It's actually a /13 (151.216.0.0/13).
It used to be in another place (I don't remember exactly, this was 5-8
years ago). Nice that they have a /13 nowadays anyway, I'd imagine there
are more temporary events nowadays.
I've used it a couple of
On 14/09/2012 12:11, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I've used it a couple of times and then a week was sufficient (start
rigging on monday, everything done by thursday morning where 5000 people
show up with their computers (this was mainly 10/100 ports, people brought
their own cables), teardown
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Also, 1 week is not suitable for debogonisation.
Could you please elaborate on this aspect? Who would be treating this
space as a bogon, and why?
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
On 14/09/2012 12:19, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 14/09/2012 12:11, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I've used it a couple of times and then a week was sufficient (start
rigging on monday, everything done by thursday morning where 5000 people
show up with their computers (this was mainly 10/100 ports,
Måns Nilsson wrote:
And get v6.
Do not NAT. When all those people want to do social networking to the same
furry BBS while also frequenting three social app sites simultaneously
you are going to get Issues if you NAT. So don't.
Don't?
Considering that, ten years ago, some computers were
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:22:01PM +0900
Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp):
Måns Nilsson wrote:
And get v6.
Do not NAT. When all those people want to do social networking to the same
furry BBS while also frequenting three
- Original Message -
From: Sean Lazar kn...@toaster.net
WLAN in large conferences certainly is a challenge. You basically want
to get as many people on 5GHz as possible due to more available
channels. 2.4GHz becomes quite noisy.
And here you raise an interesting question: do dual
- Original Message -
From: Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
05:45:55PM -0400 Quoting Jay Ashworth (j...@baylink.com):
- Original Message -
At all possible cost, avoid login or encryption for the wireless.
Yes, and no.
snip
Just keep in mind that every action
- Original Message -
From: Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
12:20:33AM -0700 Quoting Octavio Alvarez (alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org):
I'd have expected someone to have QoS mentioned already, mainly to put
FTP and P2P traffic on the least important queues and don't hog up the
Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com said:
Well, we'll be on the *sending* end of the Hugo's, but... ;-)
You might want to talk to whoever did this year's WorldCon networking.
I'm a Dragon*Con volunteer, and I know there was a some type of direct
connection between Chicago (WorldCon)
- Original Message -
From: Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com said:
Well, we'll be on the *sending* end of the Hugo's, but... ;-)
You might want to talk to whoever did this year's WorldCon networking.
I'm a Dragon*Con volunteer, and I
Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com said:
My understanding was that Dragon *took its main feed* for the Hugos via
Ustream, and the entire room got left standing; no?
I don't know; I wasn't in there, and I didn't find out about the Ustream
cut until I was home. I would think I would
- Original Message -
From: Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com said:
My understanding was that Dragon *took its main feed* for the Hugos
via Ustream, and the entire room got left standing; no?
I don't
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Barr mb...@snap-interactive.com
and as I was working the Hugo's:
On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
I know some of that went on, yes, and
Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com said:
Noted. How big is that crew for Dragon; you were, what, 30k attendees?
The estimate I heard was 52,000-55,000 paid attendees this year (plus
another 3,000+ for volunteers, guests+spouse/agent/etc., press, etc.).
Our Techops staff was around
In a message written on Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:53:01AM -0400, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
Yes, and I'm told by my best friend who did attend (I didn't make it
this year) that the hotel wired/wifi was essentially unusable, every
time he tried. Hence my interest in the issue.
I find more and more
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
