Subject: Re: IETF58 - Network Status - 12:05PM Local Time

From: "Kevin C. Almeroth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:42:17 -0800

>>From [email-masked] Tue Nov 11 09:53:18 2003
>>From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
>>To: <[email-masked]>
>>Subject: Re: IETF58 - Network Status - 12:05PM Local Time
>>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:28:51 -0600
>>X-Authenticated-Sender: [email-masked]
>>X-Spam-Processed: consulintel.es, Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:29:53 +0100
>>	(not processed: message from valid local sender)
>>X-MDRemoteIP: 130.129.135.195
>>X-Return-Path: [email-masked]
>>X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: [email-masked]
>>
>>Totally agree with your view, sorry if I was too much rude.
>>
>>But the result is that today the network is working better than never !

But the result is independent of whether people are running in ad hoc
mode...  it has to do with AP tuning, etc.

-Kevin

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:17:31 +0100 (CET)

> mode...  it has to do with AP tuning, etc.

I just noticed that where I'm sitting in the lobby, one can pick up 2
networks: ietf58 and hhonors.

Neither one charges for SSH tunnels :-)

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                             Email: [email-masked]
RIPE Network Coordination Centre            WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258           Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam    Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands      Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:52:42 +0000

So let us hope this year's "58crew" write up the lessons that have been
learnt and make them public for future events :)

Tim
(WLAN has been good in the Salons today, but iffy in the lobby bar, an
incentive to be in the sessions I guess!)

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:15:35 -0800

I have been consistently unable to maintain a connection for more 
than a very few minutes, usually not even long enough to establish a 
VPN tunnel and fetch one message.  The 802.11 coverage comes and 
goes; the APs seem to vanish and I see nothing for a while, 
eventually the network comes back but only briefly.  This has been 
the case in every session I've attended, as well as tonight's 
plenary.  It doesn't seem to matter if the room is crowded or empty, 
or where I sit.

I have attempted to only select the 'ietf58' network, but often the 
network vanishes and there are no networks visible; other times the 
only visible "network" is an ad-hoc calling itself 'ietf58'.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
"SFPD Homicide: Our Day Begins when Yours End" --Slogan seen on back of
San Francisco Police Jacket, as reported by Herb Cain in SF Chronicle

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 07:46:23 -0600

Just to echo Randall here - it seemed especially brutal last night,
when we were all in Salon D. I didn't start Network Stumbler during
the Plenary, but I did earlier in the week, and was seeing as many as
15-20 machines announcing ad-hoc ietf58.

If I hadn't been typing as fast as I could, I would have suggested
that we stop the plenary long enough to turn off all the offenders!
But perhaps we could make this announcement tonight, after everyone
gets inside and turns their machines on?

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: IETF58 - Network Status

> _______________________________________________
> This message was passed through [email-masked],
which is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed.
Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML
Administrator ([email-masked]).

---

From: Cyrus Shaoul <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:26:07 -0700

I have seen the exact same phenomena this afternoon and evening.

I am starting to get paranoid. Is there a vengeful person out there who
wants us to stop reading mail and listen to the WG meetings? Is there a
bit pattern that someone is broadcasting on purpose that causes this
problem?

It is not working. It is just making everybody play with their network
settings all the time! Even less attention is going to the WG meetings!

Oh well,

Cyrus

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:15:35 -0800
Randall Gellens <[email-masked]> wrote:

randy> I have been consistently unable to maintain a connection for more 
randy> than a very few minutes, usually not even long enough to establish a 
randy> VPN tunnel and fetch one message.  The 802.11 coverage comes and 
randy> goes; the APs seem to vanish and I see nothing for a while, 
randy> eventually the network comes back but only briefly.  This has been 
randy> the case in every session I've attended, as well as tonight's 
randy> plenary.  It doesn't seem to matter if the room is crowded or empty, 
randy> or where I sit.
randy> 
randy> I have attempted to only select the 'ietf58' network, but often the 
randy> network vanishes and there are no networks visible; other times the 
randy> only visible "network" is an ad-hoc calling itself 'ietf58'.
randy> -- 
randy> Randall Gellens
randy> Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
randy> -------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
randy> "SFPD Homicide: Our Day Begins when Yours End" --Slogan seen on back of
randy> San Francisco Police Jacket, as reported by Herb Cain in SF Chronicle
randy> 
randy> _______________________________________________
randy> This message was passed through [email-masked], which is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator ([email-masked]).

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:57:34 -0800 (PST)

this is partially a product of your driver and it's user-interface...

if you can really truely statically configure your adhesion to managed 
network it will work better.

joelja

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Joel Jaeggli  	       Unix Consulting 	       [email-masked]    
GPG Key Fingerprint:     5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2

---

From: Roland Bless <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:08:14 +0100

Hi Randall,

> eventually the network comes back but only briefly.  This has been 

I can partly confirm your observations, since
I often see my driver reporting a signal strength of 0 for seconds.
The connection is somehow unstable as my log also reports
(NSIS meeting this morning, actually not crowded)
Nov 13 10:41:01  kernel: eth1: New link status: AP In Range (0005)
Nov 13 10:41:03  kernel: eth1: New link status: AP Changed (0003)
Nov 13 10:41:25  kernel: eth1: New link status: AP Out of Range (0004)
Nov 13 10:41:26  kernel: eth1: New link status: AP In Range (0005)
Nov 13 10:42:58  kernel: eth1: New link status: AP Changed (0003)
Nov 13 10:45:18  kernel: eth1: New link status: AP Out of Range (0004)
Nov 13 10:45:18  kernel: eth1: New link status: AP In Range (0005)
Nov 13 10:45:18  kernel: eth1: New link status: AP Changed (0003)
Nov 13 10:45:23  kernel: eth1: New link status: AP Out of Range (0004)
Nov 13 10:45:24  kernel: eth1: New link status: AP In Range (0005)
Nov 13 10:45:54  kernel: eth1: New link status: AP Changed (0003)
Nov 13 10:46:28  kernel: eth1: New link status: AP Out of Range (0004)
Nov 13 10:46:28  kernel: eth1: New link status: AP In Range (0005)
... and so on...
however, it seems also to depend on the cards firmware and driver,
so other people may have no problems at all...
Inspite all the problems, it works well enough to get things actually done.

> only visible "network" is an ad-hoc calling itself 'ietf58'.

I wasn't often successful to reattach to APs after my card was
"hi-jacked" to ad-hoc cards announcing ietf58. Setting the 
essid again to the same value seems to do trick, however,
often I see signals of strength 0 (maybe the card is confused then..).
Furthermore, it happens often that I don't get an IPv6 address
directly after activating the card (maybe the RA doesn't get through).

Cheers,
 Roland

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:01:19 +0200

> network it will work better.

I don't know. I can configure my linux card to be in managed
mode on ssid ietf58, but that seems to mainly achieve the
situation where I don't hear any APs whatsoever. From
where I sit, it looks like the APs just disappear. This
could of course also be an issue with my drivers getting
confused about the many other APs appearing and disappearing --
but can someone confirm that the official APs are up and
running and are not crashing?

Anyway, I don't want us to organize a witch hunt for the
poor folks who forgot to turn of ad-hoc mode in their
machines. The protocols and products should work better
than this, imho.

--Jari

---

From: Syed Murtaza Haider Bilgrami <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:11:06 +1100

Hi,

How we can calculate TCP send rate i.e TCP packet per second for bursty 
traffic in ns?

I would like to have 1Gb link with 1000 byte TCP packet size.

I am using the formula:

TCP (send rate) = Average (Window)/Average(RTT)

I have implemented the loss module on the link for packet drops at a 
specific loss rate say :0.300134. But I am getting TCP window size 
:2.471188 and RTT is constant : 0.05.

TCP (send rate) = 2.471188 / 0.05   =  49.4

The topology is stated below:

tcp_source 
<--------------------------------------------------------------->tcp_sink

How can we amplify the TCP window like I am getting very small values of 
TCP window at large values of loss probabilities???I am looking forward for 
some values of TCP (send rate) in thousands.

Please help.......

Looking forward dor your cooperation.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Bill