Subject: Re: Re: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode

From: John Loughney <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:36:40 +0200

Joel,

> You can,(we've done it in the past) but since they're not actually 
> connected to the network when they're misbehaving it doesn't buy you much 
> until they fix their card, sleep their laptop, or reboot.
> 
> Having done some testing with various Operating systems wireless 
> implmentations, I think we can say with some degree of confidence the 
> instigating hosts are generally windows 2000 machines, it could be time to 
> upgrade because the winxp ndis wireless drivers won't do this without some 
> coaxing. Or, I'd be happy to hand out knoppix cd's to anyone who wants 
> one.

Do you have a sense if it is Win 2000 or if it is related to any specific wlan driver software?  I'd think a basic list of cards / sw that often misbehave would be a good thing.  That way, when we see a few adhoc devices in a meeting, the chairs could more specifically tell people running OS X / card Y to check their devices. 

John

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

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:22:52 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, John Loughney wrote:

> Do you have a sense if it is Win 2000 or if it is related to any 
> specific wlan driver software?  I'd think a basic list of cards / sw 
> that often misbehave would be a good thing.  That way, when we see a few 
> adhoc devices in a meeting, the chairs could more specifically tell 
> people running OS X / card Y to check their devices.

The survey we did is about two years old now, but at the time a fair 
number of the win2k drivers would produce this behavior. Basically to much 
default auto-configuration. having the wireless card be mananged by 
windows (winxp) went a long way towards solving this issue for windows 
machines. It is still possible to hose yourself if you try.

It think it would be a fairly serious mistake to add to the workload of 
the working-group chairs by making them  front-line tech support for the 
wireless network. The current exhortation towards checking for your laptop 
being in adhoc mode is well meaning, but a lot like throwing salt over the 
shoulder. If we want to characterize certain users or applications as 
mission critical providing additional wired ports in meeting rooms to 
support them seems reasonable. Including large numbers of wired ports 
seems like madness however.

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

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:33:08 -0500

I honestly think that there is something more than that. I have seen
dozens of instances of "IETF64" as an ad hoc network. (I see 6  
sitting here in the plenary.)
Unless there is someone with a perverse sense of humor spoofing me, I  
suspect that people are
trying to join to the ietf64 network and getting it wrong, both in  
captialization, and in
configuration. (Oddly, I have yet to see "ietf64" as an ad hoc network.)

Of course, when the network availability is poor, mis-configuration  
doesn't stand out like it does
when everyone else in on the network except you.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

On Nov 10, 2005, at 6:22 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

>> specific wlan driver software?  I'd think a basic list of cards /  
>> sw that often misbehave would be a good thing.  That way, when we  
>> see a few adhoc devices in a meeting, the chairs could more  
>> specifically tell people running OS X / card Y to check their  
>> devices.
>
> The survey we did is about two years old now, but at the time a  
> fair number of the win2k drivers would produce this behavior.  
> Basically to much default auto-configuration. having the wireless  
> card be mananged by windows (winxp) went a long way towards solving  
> this issue for windows machines. It is still possible to hose  
> yourself if you try.
>
> It think it would be a fairly serious mistake to add to the  
> workload of the working-group chairs by making them  front-line  
> tech support for the wireless network. The current exhortation  
> towards checking for your laptop being in adhoc mode is well  
> meaning, but a lot like throwing salt over the shoulder. If we want  
> to characterize certain users or applications as mission critical  
> providing additional wired ports in meeting rooms to support them  
> seems reasonable. Including large numbers of wired ports seems like  
> madness however.
>
>> John
>>
>
> --

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:47:21 -0800

--On 10. november 2005 20:33 -0500 Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> dozens of instances of "IETF64" as an ad hoc network. (I see 6  sitting
> here in the plenary.)

I do wonder if our diagnoses are wrong - the number of W2K laptops in the 
world (and at the IETF meetings) seems to be *decreasing*, while the number 
of ad-hoc mode nodes is *increasing*, despite our attempts at user 
education by posting to the IETF list......

It came as a surprise to me when I encountered, this weekend, a public WLAN 
that required people to configure their PCs in ad-hoc mode (they said the 
base station was running in IBSS mode, not BSS - whatever that means).

It would be a Really Good Thing if we could have equipment available in 
Dallas to locate a few of these laptops and check out what's *actually* 
going on with them (OS, drivers, configuration....)

Barking up the wrong tree is fun, but doesn't help catch the cat.....

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:29:09 -0800 (PST)

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> of ad-hoc mode nodes is *increasing*, despite our attempts at user education 
> by posting to the IETF list......

Harald, As I said before this was one variant of host that we identified 
in the past that could cause the problem... Once the adhoc network exists, 
a number of different configurations will happily join it unless told 
explicitly not to, thereby perpetuating the problem.

> base station was running in IBSS mode, not BSS - whatever that means).

If the ap where a small linux box without bss implementation such as 
hostap then it would have to run in bss mode (adhoc)

> Dallas to locate a few of these laptops and check out what's *actually* going 
> on with them (OS, drivers, configuration....)

Pointing a finger at particular machine in a room with 800 transmitting 
radio's is actually kind of hard.

I think it's fair to say that the IETF 65 hosting team is aware of the 
issue.

> Barking up the wrong tree is fun, but doesn't help catch the cat.....

Just because there's a cat in that tree doesn't mean there aren't other 
cats skulking around.

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:42:19 -0800 (PST)

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

>
> If the ap where a small linux box without bss implementation such as hostap 
> then it would have to run in bss mode (adhoc)

just a correction here:

If the ap where a small linux box without bss implementation such as 
hostap then it would have to run in ibss mode (adhoc).

> I think it's fair to say that the IETF 65 hosting team is aware of the issue.
>
> Just because there's a cat in that tree doesn't mean there aren't other cats 
> skulking around.
>> 
>
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:29:25 -0500

> going on with them (OS, drivers, configuration....)

Agreed.  It can't be that difficult to find a few and see what's really
going on, and if we don't do something official, well, there are some
people out there who were pretty peeved in Vancouver... and when we're
in *Texas*, there's no telling what they might do.

Barry

--
Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology  ([email-masked])
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam