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 <d...@txox.com> 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 <os10ru...@gmail.com> > *Date:* 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM > *To:* WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> > *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
