Re: [WISPA] Cogent?

2012-09-24 Thread Justin Wilson 
Great network. Great support. Much better than they were 5 years ago.  
As
with any other provider they do have issues from time to time.  It goes
without saying get 2 upstreams and do BGP.

Justin

--
Justin Wilson 
Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
http://www.mtin.net/blog ­ xISP News
http://www.twitter.com/j2sw ­ Follow me on Twitter
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com



-Original Message-
From: Adam Greene 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date: Monday, September 24, 2012 5:31 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: [WISPA] Cogent?

>Hi all,
>
>Cogent approached us recently, trying to sell us a 100M/100M Internet
>pipe. Anyone using them for upstream? Has your experience been generally
>positive or negative?
>
>Thanks,
>Adam
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Cogent?

2012-09-24 Thread John Thomas 
That statement alone sys a lot. We have a client with an MPLS network at 
Megapath- they don't do BGP. :-(

Bret Clark  wrote:

>No problems and their 1st level tech support actually have a clue about
>
>BGP.
>
>On 09/24/2012 06:46 PM, Victoria Proffer wrote:
>> Love them~
>>
>> Victoria Proffer
>> President/CEO
>> 314-974-5600
>> St. Louis Broadband, LLC
>> www. StLouisBroadband.com
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>On
>> Behalf Of Adam Greene
>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 4:32 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] Cogent?
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Cogent approached us recently, trying to sell us a 100M/100M Internet
>pipe.
>> Anyone using them for upstream? Has your experience been generally
>positive
>> or negative?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Adam
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Cogent?

2012-09-24 Thread Adam Vocks 
We have 1gig pipe connecting from 900 Walnut in STL.  No problems, we
get the speed and support is great.  Engineer who knew how to
troubleshoot answered the phone when I called the 800 number for
support.  Problem was with transport provider, but their support is so
good, I actually hoped it was a cogent problem!

Adam

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Bret Clark
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 5:47 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent?

No problems and their 1st level tech support actually have a clue about
BGP.

On 09/24/2012 06:46 PM, Victoria Proffer wrote:
> Love them~
>
> Victoria Proffer
> President/CEO
> 314-974-5600
> St. Louis Broadband, LLC
> www. StLouisBroadband.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
> On Behalf Of Adam Greene
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 4:32 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Cogent?
>
> Hi all,
>
> Cogent approached us recently, trying to sell us a 100M/100M Internet
pipe.
> Anyone using them for upstream? Has your experience been generally 
> positive or negative?
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Cogent?

2012-09-24 Thread Bret Clark 
No problems and their 1st level tech support actually have a clue about 
BGP.

On 09/24/2012 06:46 PM, Victoria Proffer wrote:
> Love them~
>
> Victoria Proffer
> President/CEO
> 314-974-5600
> St. Louis Broadband, LLC
> www. StLouisBroadband.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Adam Greene
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 4:32 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Cogent?
>
> Hi all,
>
> Cogent approached us recently, trying to sell us a 100M/100M Internet pipe.
> Anyone using them for upstream? Has your experience been generally positive
> or negative?
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Cogent?

2012-09-24 Thread Victoria Proffer 
Love them~

Victoria Proffer
President/CEO 
314-974-5600
St. Louis Broadband, LLC
www. StLouisBroadband.com

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Adam Greene
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 4:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Cogent?

Hi all,

Cogent approached us recently, trying to sell us a 100M/100M Internet pipe.
Anyone using them for upstream? Has your experience been generally positive
or negative?

Thanks,
Adam
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Cogent?

2012-09-24 Thread Josh Luthman 
It is cheap if they have presence!
On Sep 24, 2012 5:55 PM, "Zach Mann"  wrote:

> Solid company ... Network very rarely has any blips.   Not the cheapest
> when it comes to a gig though.
> On Sep 24, 2012 4:48 PM, "Jason Hensley"  wrote:
>
>> I have used them in the past and they were fantastic!  I don't think I
>> ever
>> had downtime from them and the price was one of the best I found.  I
>> connected to them in St. Louis for what  it's worth
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Adam Greene
>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 4:32 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] Cogent?
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Cogent approached us recently, trying to sell us a 100M/100M Internet
>> pipe.
>> Anyone using them for upstream? Has your experience been generally
>> positive
>> or negative?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Adam
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Cogent?

2012-09-24 Thread Zach Mann 
Solid company ... Network very rarely has any blips.   Not the cheapest
when it comes to a gig though.
On Sep 24, 2012 4:48 PM, "Jason Hensley"  wrote:

> I have used them in the past and they were fantastic!  I don't think I ever
> had downtime from them and the price was one of the best I found.  I
> connected to them in St. Louis for what  it's worth
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Adam Greene
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 4:32 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Cogent?
>
> Hi all,
>
> Cogent approached us recently, trying to sell us a 100M/100M Internet pipe.
> Anyone using them for upstream? Has your experience been generally positive
> or negative?
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Cogent?

2012-09-24 Thread Jason Hensley 
I have used them in the past and they were fantastic!  I don't think I ever
had downtime from them and the price was one of the best I found.  I
connected to them in St. Louis for what  it's worth



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Adam Greene
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 4:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Cogent?

Hi all,

Cogent approached us recently, trying to sell us a 100M/100M Internet pipe.
Anyone using them for upstream? Has your experience been generally positive
or negative?

Thanks,
Adam
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] Cogent?

2012-09-24 Thread Adam Greene 
Hi all,

Cogent approached us recently, trying to sell us a 100M/100M Internet 
pipe. Anyone using them for upstream? Has your experience been generally 
positive or negative?

Thanks,
Adam
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

2012-09-24 Thread Zach Mann 
Not trolling, what you explain makes perfect sense. The original posters
question is what threw me off.
On Sep 24, 2012 10:25 AM, "Greg Ihnen"  wrote:

> Obviously the intended/proper use isn't to interfere with other people's
> legit networks. The intended use is to prevent rogue networks within your
> own area where you want to maintain network security.
>
> So in the case you mention, the proper configuration is to whitelist the
> other tenants' networks/APs and *not* interfere with their network. A
> legit use might be to disassociate clients from a rogue AP that is on the
> channel you're using, which is also using your SSID and is an obvious
> attempt to lure people to use the rogue network probably for nefarious
> reasons.
>
> Does this not make sense to you or are you trolling?
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Zach Mann  wrote:
>
>> So in turn, becoming exactly what it's trying to prevent???  A Rogue AP
>> from the viewpoint of the other tenants who are simply trying to do
>> business on a different floor.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the rogue countermeasures *could* be configured to
>>> disassociate the other tenant's clients from the other tenant's AP.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Zach Mann  wrote:
>>>
 That's not how the system works.  The other Tenants would still be
 using their OWN wireless network, only the floor that deployed Cisco WLC
 would be 'squashing' the "rouge AP's" from their OWN network.

 Z

 On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Doug Clark  wrote:

>Did any of you read the original posters question?
>
> I understand that the technology is out there to squash *"ROUGE
> AP's".  *
> Let me make this a little simpler.  Lets' say we have an office
> building with 6 floors and each floor is leased to a different tenant.
> Lets say that the tenant on the fourth floor decides he is sick of
> competing for airwaves for his wireless system and deploys the Cisco
> or Motorola system and squashes all the other tenants APs.  All the
> other tenants APs now do not work because of the system which
> has been put in place by the tenant on the fourth floor.  Would this
> be a violation of Part-15 if all the other tenants were to file a formal
> complaint with the FCC?
> **
> *---Original Message---*
>
>  *From:* Greg Ihnen 
> *Date:* 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM
> *To:* WISPA General List 
> *Subject:* [WISPA] Can they really do this?
>
> There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the
> ins and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like
> conventions.
>
> This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that
> will spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not
> by occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
> impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wireless mailing list
>>> Wireless@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

2012-09-24 Thread Greg Ihnen 
Obviously the intended/proper use isn't to interfere with other people's
legit networks. The intended use is to prevent rogue networks within your
own area where you want to maintain network security.

So in the case you mention, the proper configuration is to whitelist the
other tenants' networks/APs and *not* interfere with their network. A legit
use might be to disassociate clients from a rogue AP that is on the channel
you're using, which is also using your SSID and is an obvious attempt to
lure people to use the rogue network probably for nefarious reasons.

Does this not make sense to you or are you trolling?

Greg

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Zach Mann  wrote:

> So in turn, becoming exactly what it's trying to prevent???  A Rogue AP
> from the viewpoint of the other tenants who are simply trying to do
> business on a different floor.
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
>
>> I believe the rogue countermeasures *could* be configured to
>> disassociate the other tenant's clients from the other tenant's AP.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Zach Mann  wrote:
>>
>>> That's not how the system works.  The other Tenants would still be using
>>> their OWN wireless network, only the floor that deployed Cisco WLC would be
>>> 'squashing' the "rouge AP's" from their OWN network.
>>>
>>> Z
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Doug Clark  wrote:
>>>
Did any of you read the original posters question?

 I understand that the technology is out there to squash *"ROUGE
 AP's".  *
 Let me make this a little simpler.  Lets' say we have an office
 building with 6 floors and each floor is leased to a different tenant.
 Lets say that the tenant on the fourth floor decides he is sick of
 competing for airwaves for his wireless system and deploys the Cisco
 or Motorola system and squashes all the other tenants APs.  All the
 other tenants APs now do not work because of the system which
 has been put in place by the tenant on the fourth floor.  Would this be
 a violation of Part-15 if all the other tenants were to file a formal
 complaint with the FCC?
 **
 *---Original Message---*

  *From:* Greg Ihnen 
 *Date:* 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM
 *To:* WISPA General List 
 *Subject:* [WISPA] Can they really do this?

 There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the
 ins and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like
 conventions.

 This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that
 will spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not
 by occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
 impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wireless mailing list
>>> Wireless@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] Lightning protector question

2012-09-24 Thread Eduardo 
Do you have some recommendation for lightning surge protector to use it between 
a PowerBridgeM5 and the PoE?

Thanks,
Eduardo
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] [SPAM] Lightning surge protector for Mikrotick

2012-09-24 Thread Jim Patient 
We have them in stock.

Thx,

Jim Patient

Link Technologies, Inc.

314-735-0270 x102

http://wlan1.com 

http://towercoverage.com  

http://www.linktechs.net   

 

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Eduardo
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [SPAM][WISPA] Lightning surge protector for Mikrotick

 

Hi,

 

Does anyone know where I can find the PoE lightning protector for MT
router board 411?

 

Eduardo

 

- Original Message - 

From: Doug Clark   

To: WISPA General List   

Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:35 AM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

 

Did any of you read the original posters question?  

 

I understand that the technology is out there to squash "ROUGE  AP's".  

Let me make this a little simpler.  Lets' say we have an office building
with 6 floors and each floor is leased to a different tenant.

Lets say that the tenant on the fourth floor decides he is sick of
competing for airwaves for his wireless system and deploys the Cisco

or Motorola system and squashes all the other tenants APs.  All the
other tenants APs now do not work because of the system which

has been put in place by the tenant on the fourth floor.  Would this be
a violation of Part-15 if all the other tenants were to file a formal

complaint with the FCC?

 

---Original Message---

 

From: Greg Ihnen  

Date: 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM

To: WISPA General List  

Subject: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

 

There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the
ins and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like
conventions. 

 

This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that
will spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them,
not by occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather
by impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?






___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

<>___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

2012-09-24 Thread Zach Mann 
So in turn, becoming exactly what it's trying to prevent???  A Rogue AP
from the viewpoint of the other tenants who are simply trying to do
business on a different floor.

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:

> I believe the rogue countermeasures *could* be configured to disassociate
> the other tenant's clients from the other tenant's AP.
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Zach Mann  wrote:
>
>> That's not how the system works.  The other Tenants would still be using
>> their OWN wireless network, only the floor that deployed Cisco WLC would be
>> 'squashing' the "rouge AP's" from their OWN network.
>>
>> Z
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Doug Clark  wrote:
>>
>>>Did any of you read the original posters question?
>>>
>>> I understand that the technology is out there to squash *"ROUGE
>>> AP's".  *
>>> Let me make this a little simpler.  Lets' say we have an office building
>>> with 6 floors and each floor is leased to a different tenant.
>>> Lets say that the tenant on the fourth floor decides he is sick of
>>> competing for airwaves for his wireless system and deploys the Cisco
>>> or Motorola system and squashes all the other tenants APs.  All the
>>> other tenants APs now do not work because of the system which
>>> has been put in place by the tenant on the fourth floor.  Would this be
>>> a violation of Part-15 if all the other tenants were to file a formal
>>> complaint with the FCC?
>>> **
>>> *---Original Message---*
>>>
>>>  *From:* Greg Ihnen 
>>> *Date:* 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM
>>> *To:* WISPA General List 
>>> *Subject:* [WISPA] Can they really do this?
>>>
>>> There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the
>>> ins and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like
>>> conventions.
>>>
>>> This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that
>>> will spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not
>>> by occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
>>> impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wireless mailing list
>>> Wireless@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

2012-09-24 Thread Greg Ihnen 
I believe the rogue countermeasures *could* be configured to disassociate
the other tenant's clients from the other tenant's AP.

Greg

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Zach Mann  wrote:

> That's not how the system works.  The other Tenants would still be using
> their OWN wireless network, only the floor that deployed Cisco WLC would be
> 'squashing' the "rouge AP's" from their OWN network.
>
> Z
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Doug Clark  wrote:
>
>>Did any of you read the original posters question?
>>
>> I understand that the technology is out there to squash *"ROUGE  AP's".
>> *
>> Let me make this a little simpler.  Lets' say we have an office building
>> with 6 floors and each floor is leased to a different tenant.
>> Lets say that the tenant on the fourth floor decides he is sick of
>> competing for airwaves for his wireless system and deploys the Cisco
>> or Motorola system and squashes all the other tenants APs.  All the other
>> tenants APs now do not work because of the system which
>> has been put in place by the tenant on the fourth floor.  Would this be a
>> violation of Part-15 if all the other tenants were to file a formal
>> complaint with the FCC?
>> **
>> *---Original Message---*
>>
>>  *From:* Greg Ihnen 
>> *Date:* 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM
>> *To:* WISPA General List 
>> *Subject:* [WISPA] Can they really do this?
>>
>> There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the ins
>> and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like
>> conventions.
>>
>> This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that
>> will spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not
>> by occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
>> impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] Lightning surge protector for Mikrotick

2012-09-24 Thread Eduardo 
Hi,

Does anyone know where I can find the PoE lightning protector for MT router 
board 411?

Eduardo

  - Original Message - 
  From: Doug Clark 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?


Did any of you read the original posters question?  

I understand that the technology is out there to squash "ROUGE  AP's".  
Let me make this a little simpler.  Lets' say we have an office 
building with 6 floors and each floor is leased to a different tenant.
Lets say that the tenant on the fourth floor decides he is sick of 
competing for airwaves for his wireless system and deploys the Cisco
or Motorola system and squashes all the other tenants APs.  All the 
other tenants APs now do not work because of the system which
has been put in place by the tenant on the fourth floor.  Would this be 
a violation of Part-15 if all the other tenants were to file a formal
complaint with the FCC?

---Original Message---

From: Greg Ihnen
Date: 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the 
ins and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like 
conventions. 


This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that 
will spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not by 
occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by 
impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations? 
  
   



--


  ___
  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

2012-09-24 Thread Greg Ihnen 
Regarding what you wrote below (I'm assuming you're not copying and pasting
another person's question since you didn't indicate it's a quote) if the
tenant who deploys rogue countermeasures against other tenant's APs, I'm
not sure it's *RF* interference. It's not interfering with the RF signal of
the other tenant's APs or clients, it's merely telling the clients to
disassociate from the other tenants AP. It's spoofing the other tenant's
AP's MAC address, but I'm not sure that qualifies as false identification
because it's not spoofing a call sign. It's clearly interfering with the
other tenants *COMMUNICATION*. I guess the question would be how the FCC
would interpret that. Would it fall under "malicious interference"?

Greg

You are aware that the APs that have rogue countermeasures give very
granular control, and would allow the tenant deploying rogue
countermeasures to whitelist the other tenants' APs.

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Doug Clark  wrote:

>Did any of you read the original posters question?
>
> I understand that the technology is out there to squash *"ROUGE  AP's".  *
> Let me make this a little simpler.  Lets' say we have an office building
> with 6 floors and each floor is leased to a different tenant.
> Lets say that the tenant on the fourth floor decides he is sick of
> competing for airwaves for his wireless system and deploys the Cisco
> or Motorola system and squashes all the other tenants APs.  All the other
> tenants APs now do not work because of the system which
> has been put in place by the tenant on the fourth floor.  Would this be a
> violation of Part-15 if all the other tenants were to file a formal
> complaint with the FCC?
> **
> *---Original Message---*
>
>  *From:* Greg Ihnen 
> *Date:* 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM
> *To:* WISPA General List 
> *Subject:* [WISPA] Can they really do this?
>
> There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the ins
> and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like
> conventions.
>
> This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that will
> spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not by
> occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
> impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

2012-09-24 Thread Zach Mann 
That's not how the system works.  The other Tenants would still be using
their OWN wireless network, only the floor that deployed Cisco WLC would be
'squashing' the "rouge AP's" from their OWN network.

Z

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Doug Clark  wrote:

>Did any of you read the original posters question?
>
> I understand that the technology is out there to squash *"ROUGE  AP's".  *
> Let me make this a little simpler.  Lets' say we have an office building
> with 6 floors and each floor is leased to a different tenant.
> Lets say that the tenant on the fourth floor decides he is sick of
> competing for airwaves for his wireless system and deploys the Cisco
> or Motorola system and squashes all the other tenants APs.  All the other
> tenants APs now do not work because of the system which
> has been put in place by the tenant on the fourth floor.  Would this be a
> violation of Part-15 if all the other tenants were to file a formal
> complaint with the FCC?
> **
> *---Original Message---*
>
>  *From:* Greg Ihnen 
> *Date:* 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM
> *To:* WISPA General List 
> *Subject:* [WISPA] Can they really do this?
>
> There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the ins
> and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like
> conventions.
>
> This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that will
> spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not by
> occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
> impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

2012-09-24 Thread Doug Clark 
Did any of you read the original posters question?  

I understand that the technology is out there to squash "ROUGE  AP's".  
Let me make this a little simpler.  Lets' say we have an office building
with 6 floors and each floor is leased to a different tenant.
Lets say that the tenant on the fourth floor decides he is sick of competing
for airwaves for his wireless system and deploys the Cisco
or Motorola system and squashes all the other tenants APs.  All the other
tenants APs now do not work because of the system which
has been put in place by the tenant on the fourth floor.  Would this be a
violation of Part-15 if all the other tenants were to file a formal
complaint with the FCC?

---Original Message---
 
From: Greg Ihnen
Date: 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Can they really do this?
 
There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the ins
and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like conventions.



This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that will 
spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not by 
occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by 
impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

2012-09-24 Thread Daniel White 
Motorola also has AirDefense as part of their portfolio.  Only difference is
that it can be installed without their WLAN solution (instead using
"sensors").

 

http://www.airdefense.net/products/servicesplatform/securitycompliance/secur
ity.php#eliminate

 

Daniel White

(303) 746-3590

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 7:45 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

 

Cisco has this functionality.  I would think if it were illegal, they would
be slapped pretty hard.

 

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/wireless/ncs/1.0/configuration/guide/sol.htm
l#wp1040128 

 


Tagging and Containing Rogue Access Points


When the Cisco Unified Wireless Network Solution is monitored using NCS, NCS
generates the flags as rogue access point traps and displays the known rogue
access points by MAC address. The operator can then display a map showing
the location of the access points closest to each rogue access point. The
next step is to mark them as Known or Acknowledged rogue access points (no
further action), Alert rogue access points (watch for and notify when
active), or Contained rogue access points (have between one and four access
points discourage rogue access point clients by sending the clients
deauthenticate and disassociate messages whenever they associate with the
rogue access point).


Regards,
Chuck



On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Jon Auer  wrote:

As part of the WiFi standard a AP can tell a client to stop talking to it.
Rogue AP containment systems impersonate the targeted AP and send these
messages to observed clients. 

This kind of functionality is important in cases where you need to prevent
employees from accidentally creating security breaches. Ie by plugging their
cradlepoint into the network or not disabling the wifi in a time machine
NAS. 

On Sep 23, 2012 10:29 PM, "Doug Clark"  wrote:


If not with RF, how do you suppose that an AP would interfere with another
AP? That is what the poster is asking about.

 

I am curious on how you would crack a WEP key without using RF signal.

What you are talking about is criminal and your right breaking into secure
APs are not under the rules of Part-15. 

 

 

 

---Original Message---

 

From: Jeromie Reeves  

Date: 9/23/2012 5:53:20 PM

To: WISPA General List  

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

 

IANAL but, I am fairly sure P15 only applies to RF, not to the OSI layers.
If the FCC does have control of the OSI layers from a P15 device then people
doing WEP cracking and such are in violation of P15 and that really is a
stretch. 

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Doug Clark  wrote:


If there is an AP that does that and it is operating in Part15, it would be
directly in violation of the very rules that gave the device its right to
exist!

The major substance of Part-15 reads: This device complies with Part 15 of
the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1)
this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must
accept any interference received, including interference that may cause
undesired operation.

 

If the poster has actually seen an AP that does what he says it does then it
would be in violation of Part 15 itself and thus an entity could lodge a
formal complaint against the

person or entity that was operating said AP and possibly end up with a
$25,000.00 ticket.  YMMV

 

 

 

 

---Original Message---

 

From: Greg Ihnen  

Date: 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM

To: WISPA General List  

Subject: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

 

There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the ins
and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like conventions.


 

This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that will
spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not by
occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?

 

The quote:

 

> One of which I forgot to mention. Many of the hotels (I believe all
> Hilton properties at this time) have sold the facilities space for their
> wifi network to another company. They CAN'T negotiate it with you,
> because they don't own it any more. And most of these wifi networks have
> stealth killers enabled, so that they spoof any other wifi zone they see
> and send back reject messages to the clients. So you can't run them side
> by side.

 

Greg

 

  _  

 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 





___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wi

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

2012-09-24 Thread Chuck Hogg 
Cisco has this functionality.  I would think if it were illegal, they would
be slapped pretty hard.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/wireless/ncs/1.0/configuration/guide/sol.html#wp1040128

Tagging and Containing Rogue Access Points

When the Cisco Unified Wireless Network Solution is monitored using NCS,
NCS generates the flags as rogue access point traps and displays the known
rogue access points by MAC address. The operator can then display a map
showing the location of the access points closest to each rogue access
point. The next step is to mark them as Known or Acknowledged rogue access
points (no further action), Alert rogue access points (watch for and notify
when active), or Contained rogue access points (have between one and four
access points discourage rogue access point clients by sending the clients
deauthenticate and disassociate messages whenever they associate with the
rogue access point).

Regards,
Chuck


On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Jon Auer  wrote:

> As part of the WiFi standard a AP can tell a client to stop talking to it.
> Rogue AP containment systems impersonate the targeted AP and send these
> messages to observed clients.
>
> This kind of functionality is important in cases where you need to prevent
> employees from accidentally creating security breaches. Ie by plugging
> their cradlepoint into the network or not disabling the wifi in a time
> machine NAS.
> On Sep 23, 2012 10:29 PM, "Doug Clark"  wrote:
>
>> If not with RF, how do you suppose that an AP would interfere with
>> another AP? That is what the poster is asking about.
>>
>> I am curious on how you would crack a WEP key without using RF signal.
>> What you are talking about is criminal and your right breaking into
>> secure APs are not under the rules of Part-15.
>>
>>
>>
>>  *---Original Message---*
>>
>>  *From:* Jeromie Reeves 
>> *Date:* 9/23/2012 5:53:20 PM
>> *To:* WISPA General List 
>> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?
>>
>> IANAL but, I am fairly sure P15 only applies to RF, not to the OSI
>> layers. If the FCC does have control of the OSI layers from a P15 device
>> then people doing WEP cracking and such are in violation of P15 and that
>> really is a stretch.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Doug Clark  wrote:
>> If there is an AP that does that and it is operating in Part15, it
>> would be directly in violation of the very rules that gave the device its
>> right to exist!
>> The major substance of Part-15 reads: This device complies with Part 15
>> of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1)
>> this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must
>> accept any interference received, including interference that may cause
>> undesired operation.
>>
>> If the poster has actually seen an AP that does what he says it does then
>> it would be in violation of Part 15 itself and thus an entity could lodge a
>> formal complaint against the
>> person or entity that was operating said AP and possibly end up with a
>> $25,000.00 ticket.  YMMV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  *---Original Message---*
>>
>>  *From:* Greg Ihnen 
>> *Date:* 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM
>> *To:* WISPA General List 
>> *Subject:* [WISPA] Can they really do this?
>>
>> There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the ins
>> and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like
>> conventions.
>>
>> This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that
>> will spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not
>> by occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
>> impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?
>>
>> The quote:
>>
>> > One of which I forgot to mention. Many of the hotels (I believe all
>> > Hilton properties at this time) have sold the facilities space for their
>> > wifi network to another company. They CAN'T negotiate it with you,
>> > because they don't own it any more. And most of these wifi networks have
>> > stealth killers enabled, so that they spoof any other wifi zone they see
>> > and send back reject messages to the clients. So you can't run them side
>> > by side.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> --
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
> ___
> Wireless maili

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

2012-09-24 Thread Jon Auer 
As part of the WiFi standard a AP can tell a client to stop talking to it.
Rogue AP containment systems impersonate the targeted AP and send these
messages to observed clients.

This kind of functionality is important in cases where you need to prevent
employees from accidentally creating security breaches. Ie by plugging
their cradlepoint into the network or not disabling the wifi in a time
machine NAS.
On Sep 23, 2012 10:29 PM, "Doug Clark"  wrote:

> If not with RF, how do you suppose that an AP would interfere with
> another AP? That is what the poster is asking about.
>
> I am curious on how you would crack a WEP key without using RF signal.
> What you are talking about is criminal and your right breaking into secure
> APs are not under the rules of Part-15.
>
>
>
>  *---Original Message---*
>
>  *From:* Jeromie Reeves 
> *Date:* 9/23/2012 5:53:20 PM
> *To:* WISPA General List 
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?
>
> IANAL but, I am fairly sure P15 only applies to RF, not to the OSI layers.
> If the FCC does have control of the OSI layers from a P15 device then
> people doing WEP cracking and such are in violation of P15 and that really
> is a stretch.
>
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Doug Clark  wrote:
> If there is an AP that does that and it is operating in Part15, it
> would be directly in violation of the very rules that gave the device its
> right to exist!
> The major substance of Part-15 reads: This device complies with Part 15 of
> the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1)
> this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must
> accept any interference received, including interference that may cause
> undesired operation.
>
> If the poster has actually seen an AP that does what he says it does then
> it would be in violation of Part 15 itself and thus an entity could lodge a
> formal complaint against the
> person or entity that was operating said AP and possibly end up with a
> $25,000.00 ticket.  YMMV
>
>
>
>
>  *---Original Message---*
>
>  *From:* Greg Ihnen 
> *Date:* 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM
> *To:* WISPA General List 
> *Subject:* [WISPA] Can they really do this?
>
> There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the ins
> and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like
> conventions.
>
> This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that will
> spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not by
> occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
> impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?
>
> The quote:
>
> > One of which I forgot to mention. Many of the hotels (I believe all
> > Hilton properties at this time) have sold the facilities space for their
> > wifi network to another company. They CAN'T negotiate it with you,
> > because they don't own it any more. And most of these wifi networks have
> > stealth killers enabled, so that they spoof any other wifi zone they see
> > and send back reject messages to the clients. So you can't run them side
> > by side.
>
> Greg
>
> --
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
>
> --
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless