Subject: RE: [67ATTENDEES] Anyone get the 'broadband' connection in the IETFhotel

From: "Pdut, Yaron \(Yaron\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 00:19:31 +0200

At the west building its working great. With one exception - you should
"refresh" the subscripion every 24 hr.  
Let's see if they charge me for that at the end of the week...

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:06 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [67ATTENDEES] Anyone get the 'broadband' connection in the
IETFhotel

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: 08 November, 2006 00:00
>To: Loughney John (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
>Subject: Welcome to the "67ATTENDEES" mailing list
>
>Welcome to the [email-masked] mailing list!
>
>To post to this list, send your email to:
>
>  [email-masked]
>
>General information about the mailing list is at:
>
>  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/67attendees
>
>**********************************************************************
>
>                                Note Well
>
>Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication 
>as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made 
>within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF 
>Contribution".  Such statements include oral statements in IETF 
>sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any 
>time or place, which are addressed to:
>
>     - the IETF plenary session,
>     - any IETF working group or portion thereof,
>     - the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
>     - the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
>     - any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any
>       working group or design team list, or any other list
>       functioning under IETF auspices,
>     - the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function
>
>All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 3978 (updated by

>RFC 4748) and RFC 3979.
>
>Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other 
>function, that are clearly not intended to be input to
Hi all,

Sunday night and Monday morning, I wanted to get some work done in my
room, but found the in-room network kept timing out on the login screen.
I talked to a few people who reported the exact same thing. Anyone else
actually get the in-room connection working?

thanks,
John

_______________________________________________
67ATTENDEES mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/67attendees

_______________________________________________
67ATTENDEES mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/67attendees

---

From: Paul Aitken <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:29:50 +0000

> At the west building its working great.

At 7am local time today I was seeing ping times in excess of *six* 
seconds to our mail server in UK.

> Let's see if they charge me for that at the end of the week...

If you're not on the IETF rate then at least tell them you're with the 
IETF and want free internet in your room. They wouldn't change my 
exorbitant room rate, but they gave me free "broadband" - though snails 
have moved faster...

-- 
Paul Aitken
Cisco Systems Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:15:24 -0800

> seconds to our mail server in UK.

I found myself speculating which was more overloaded, the hotel
network or the hotel hot water system.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:15:24 -0800

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:15:54 -0800

Nope. I have tried a few times between Sunday and now. It gives me (very 
slowly) a login screen, and then after trying to activate, I get a 
duplicate address error and nothing works.

I am on the 10th floor in the East tower, and if I open my balcony 
window (nice weather), I can sometimes connect to the ietf wlan 
network..probably from the West tower LOS. If all else fails, GPRS is a 
bit faster here than San Francisco and I go with that.. that's the most 
reliable connection from my room, if a bit low bw.

TJ

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:38:40 -0800

T.J.,

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:15:54PM -0800, T.J. Kniveton wrote:
> network..probably from the West tower LOS.

I am on the 11th floor and I have a choice of open networks available
using my somewhat higher-powered 802.11b card without any need to open
balcony windows.

David Kessens
---

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:09:31 -0800

T.J., David

> using my somewhat higher-powered 802.11b card without any need to open

And I'm on the 11th floor, and have an AirportExpress running.  I'll
change it to open, too.

	Henrik

---

From: Tim Thome <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:08:02 -0800

> And I'm on the 11th floor, and have an AirportExpress running.  I'll

Speaking from experience - let folks know the SSID and a WPA 
passphrase... modern 802.11b cards support at least WPA, and most 
current 802.11g devices support WPA2. If folks coordinate SSID's, Keys, 
and Channels, we can expand the 'net for others.

It's one thing to share bandwidth, however limited - it's another to 
just keep things open. My last experience with an open WiFi AP was that 
someone started up a bittorrent client, and shut down my DSLAN access 
within about 15 seconds. So now I do lock things down a bit.

The Apple Airport Express is a nice travel router, another is 
Cisco-Linksys' WTR54GS (this is what I carry)...

Tim

-- 
Tim Thome
Systems Design Engineer, Senior Staff
Kyocera Telecommunications Research Corp.
San Diego, CA

---

From: "Peter Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 20:58:00 -0800

>Cisco-Linksys' WTR54GS (this is what I carry)...

The Buffalo WHR-G54S is good also - very small to pack away. It's
commonly on sale for $39 recently and has 120-240V power so taking
overseas is easy.

Cheers.....Peter

---

From: Dennis Ferguson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 09:35:17 -0800

> seconds to our mail server in UK.

I got the following on the day I arrived and recorded it for posterity.
I've seen routers which can reorder packets, but one which can reorder
them by 8 seconds seems like a rather exceptional feat of engineering.

Dennis Ferguson

$ ping 128.100.100.1
PING 128.100.100.1 (128.100.100.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=46 time=2152.449 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=46 time=2471.834 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=46 time=1978.171 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=46 time=9786.939 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=46 time=8924.902 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=46 time=8183.061 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=46 time=7183.093 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=46 time=1345.046 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=46 time=1740.026 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=14 ttl=46 time=1720.237 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=15 ttl=46 time=1335.386 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=16 ttl=46 time=631.387 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=17 ttl=46 time=366.841 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=46 time=13743.253 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=46 time=12596.973 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=46 time=12183.480 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=18 ttl=46 time=8526.156 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=21 ttl=46 time=6074.832 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=22 ttl=46 time=8463.227 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=23 ttl=46 time=7965.649 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=19 ttl=46 time=12344.261 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=20 ttl=46 time=13880.017 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=24 ttl=46 time=10297.017 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=25 ttl=46 time=10779.715 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=27 ttl=46 time=11655.553 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=28 ttl=46 time=11020.250 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=29 ttl=46 time=10021.397 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=31 ttl=46 time=8205.293 ms
64 bytes from 128.100.100.1: icmp_seq=34 ttl=46 time=7266.492 ms
^C
--- 128.100.100.1 ping statistics ---
42 packets transmitted, 29 packets received, 30% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 366.841/7339.412/13880.017/4324.829 ms
$

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:11:54 -0800

Tim Thome wrote:
> just keep things open. My last experience with an open WiFi AP was 
> that someone started up a bittorrent client, and shut down my DSLAN 
> access within about 15 seconds. So now I do lock things down a bit.
IETF folks would never do such a thing, would they??
> Cisco-Linksys' WTR54GS (this is what I carry)...
I thought the WTR54G was a nice solution too, especially for $19 at 
Fry's.. until I bought one and it didn't work at all. Spent an hour on 
tech support to India and now it's been sent back to Linksys for 
replacement (nothing yet)..... Never had a problem with my AP Express. 
Should have bought another one for travel, but I guess I was too 
attracted by the cheap price tag of the Linksys. Like they say, you get 
what you pay for (or less)..

> them by 8 seconds seems like a rather exceptional feat of engineering.
Wow, that *is* a pretty unique one..

TJ

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:57:38 -0800

T.J. Kniveton wrote:

> Fry's.. until I bought one and it didn't work at all.

Unfortunately Linksys changed the internals on that model without 
changing the model number. Up through version 4.x the WRT54G (and 
WRT54GS) ran Linux under the hood, and were prized by hackers 
everywhere. Version 5 switched to VxWorks internals (and cut the ram 
in half), and there have been lots of problems reported.

If you can find a WRT54G with versions in the 3.x or 4.x ranges, or 
one of the newer WRT54GL models (the L stands for Linux), you'll be 
fine, but they are more expensive. Here is a URL for those interested 
in more info:

http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4729641740.html

I myself have 2 of the old Linux based models, and have never had a 
single problem with them.

hth,

Doug

-- 
     If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough

---

From: "Peter Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:06:45 -0800

>single problem with them.

The Buffalo one is similar to the earlier Linksys one with regard to
being hackable. There are DD-WRT versions available for it too.

Cheers.....Peter

---

From: Tim Thome <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:41:43 -0800

At 10:11 AM 11/8/2006, T.J. Kniveton wrote:
>Should have bought another one for travel, but I guess I was too attracted 
>by the cheap price tag of the Linksys. Like they say, you get what you pay 
>for (or less)..

WTR54GS, it's a small travel router, not the same as the WRT54G... it's 
about the same size as the airport express.

The WRT54G/GS can be a good router, however Linksys did change it in the 
later HW revisions (v5 and later). Even though it's the same model number, 
it's definitely not the same level of performance as the older HW. DD-WRT 
can be flashed on to I hear, and this does help.

Tim
--
Tim Thome <mailto:[email-masked]>
Senior Staff Engineer
Kyocera Telecommunications Research Corp.
San Diego, CA

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:58:22 -0800

Tim Thome wrote:

> WTR54GS, it's a small travel router, not the same as the WRT54G...

D'oh! Dyslexia strikes agian. :)

Doug

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:26:11 -0800

I use WL-530g from Asus.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Tim Thome <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:41:43 -0800
> Para: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
> CC: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: [67ATTENDEES] Anyone get the 'broadband' connection in the IETF
> hotel
> 

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:07:33 -0800

I too was unable to get online on Sunday night. I also got TCP refused,
etc. when getting redirected, and then finally got redirected and was
able to click through.  (Is PANA the standards-track way to do this?)

I am now a lot more successful, but the network is still very slow.

Ray: we have been able to re-plug hotel networks in the past to use
     our bandwidth.  I'd really like to see this part of our contract
     negotiations.

- -- 
]            Bear: "Me, I'm just the shape of a bear."          |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [