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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 > >
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
