Subject: [72attendees] Not a complaint

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:07:32 +0100

The network wasn't working so well for me in the BEHAVE session:

--- sequoia.muada.com ping6 statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 96.774/551.194/2062.626 ms

Apparently my Mac has scaled back its transmission speed somewhat, see  
picture.

However, on the ietf-a network things are much better at 104 Mbps on  
channel 60.

Iljitsch

_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:11:13 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> However, on the ietf-a network things are much better at 104 Mbps on channel 
> 60.

please open a ticket by either going to:

http://meeting.ietf.org

or by sending email to: [email-masked]

thanks

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:15:00 +0100

> or by sending email to: [email-masked]

Are others also seeing issues? Please email me offlist in that case  
and I'll open a ticked.
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:55:28 +0100

I couldn't get anything from the 'ietf' network. However, the cgnat  
network worked fine for me (I have a Mac)

For a friend with Windows XP, it didn't work at all.

On Jul 29, 2008, at 5:15 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
>

---

From: Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:19:11 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Yoav Nir wrote:

> I couldn't get anything from the 'ietf' network. However, the cgnat network 
> worked fine for me (I have a Mac)
>

All -

Just a reminder, the IETF network is v6 enabled, and if you're
have success with cgnat and NOT with ietf, you may want to
review your network settings.

A simple test, go to: www.sixxs.net and check to green status
box in the upper right hand corner. If you don't have v6,
you can adjust your network settings using the instructions
found here:

http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/IETF71_IPv4_Outage

and I've added this link to meeting.ietf.org

- Lucy

>> Are others also seeing issues? Please email me offlist in that case and 
>> I'll open a ticked.

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:28:37 +0100

I'm on 'ietf' all the time. It was just at that particular room at  
that particular time that I couldn't get a signal on 'ietf'

My friend with the XP couldn't get a signal on 'ietf' either, and  
couldn't get an address on cgnat.

On Jul 30, 2008, at 8:19 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote:

>>> Are others also seeing issues? Please email me offlist in that  
>>> case and I'll open a ticked.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:41:11 -0400

> you can adjust your network settings using the instructions

In testing on Sunday, I had more signal power in the Hotel Foyer area  
with cgnat than
with ietf or ietf-a. Here in Ballroom 1 the power seems adequate in  
both of those. BTW,
my box is green on www.sixxs.net.

I personally was pleased to see softwires working.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:54:43 -0700

Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> with ietf or ietf-a. Here in Ballroom 1 the power seems adequate in both 
> of those. BTW,

This is a product of the client's scanning implementation rapidly 
jumping through channels...

All 6 ssids are available and beaconed on every ap deployed.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:59:29 -0400

On Jul 30, 2008, at 4:54 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> In testing on Sunday, I had more signal power in the Hotel Foyer  
>> area with cgnat than

Well, maybe so, but on Sunday in the foyer I had 1 bar and couldn't  
even ssh to my servers on ietf or ietf-a,
while ietf-cgnat was fine in both power and connectivity.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:38:48 -0700

Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> Well, maybe so, but on Sunday in the foyer I had 1 bar and couldn't even 
> ssh to my servers on ietf or ietf-a,

The two A only ssids are A-only and since it attenuates more 
dramatically than the 2.4ghz b/g channels I imagine there are a number 
of situations where the a/b/g/n ssids are more visible than the a/n only 
ssids.

It's something of a rich target environment if you wander around with a 
snooper you'll some 600 discreet stations beaconed from 120 radios on 60 
ap's.

With the passing of most of the orinoco cards and the arrival of N in a 
big way we may have passed from one "interesting" set of client driver 
interaction issues to another.
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees