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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> *Date:* 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM >>> *To:* WISPA General List <[email protected]> >>> *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 >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
