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

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:44:52 -0500

Phillip Hallam-Baker writes...

> I think that what we should do is to send the IEEE 801.b/g group a
> polite letter pointing out that if our people here at the IETF cannot
> figure this stuff out then their less technically astute customers
might
> be having some trouble as well.

I don't believe this is an 802.11 problem.  That group standardizes PHY
and MAC (up to Layer 2) protocols.  The usability problems with 802.11
networks are in the device drivers, operating systems and configuration
applications.  It would be more effective to send mail to Microsoft,
Apple, et. al.

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

---

From: Dave Singer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:25:29 -0800

>applications.  It would be more effective to send mail to Microsoft,

I disagree, I think.  IETF, MPEG, large corporate conferences and so 
on, they all have trouble running large 802.11 networks.  They all 
can run large wired networks.  The difference is that even at 
meetings run by and attended by supposed network experts, it's hard 
hard hard to get an 802.11 network to run well.  That is not right.

I do believe that there are (were) some operating systems that 
switched to ad-hoc mode and made a network if it couldn't find the 
network you asked to join.  (I don't think it was OS X.)  That's a 
mistake.  A big big mistake.

Guidelines on (a) network naming and (b) frequency selection from the 
802.11 group would be useful.  For example, maybe you need to do 
something to claim to be an 'expert' to create an ad-hoc with a 
'plain' name;  otherwise your ad-hoc network would be (for example) 
prefixed by "*" or something.  And maybe OS's could diagnose 
frequency problems ("there are several base stations in here all on 
channel XX and they are interfering with each other" or whatever). 
Dammit, a FAQ on <http://grouper.ieee.org/groups> would be a good 
start.

I've been at a meeting where a respected network equipment provider 
provided the network.  Because the base stations had an artificial 
limit of 10 IP addresses for their NAT/DHCP, he setup 3 of them in 
the room, next to each other, on the same channel and SSID.  Result 
-- they are all in very low-power mode, interfering like hell, and 
the users if they get a signal can't choose from which box and so it 
doesn't actually spread the load.

Finally, it's clear that at least some base stations get hopelessly 
confused (sometimes I have even resorted to the technical term 
"wedged") when there is an ad-hoc in range with the same SSID.  Some 
testing and robustness guidelines from the 802.11 group would also 
help.
-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:17:22 -0800

Guidelines would be nice, but wouldn't help here:
The evidence seems to identify systems as the culprits with operating  
systems that have not been upgraded in the last half-decade.

Those won't benefit from new information.

(I don't want to start discussion about the economic realities that  
make people run ancient operating systems, this is just about  
injecting reality.)

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:27:26 -0500

Maybe we can at least try to validate this theory by asking at the 
plenary as to which operating system people are running.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:37:54 -0500

I think we can make a pretty good guess as to the list, although  
maybe not the relative positions.

I think that from now on registration packets should include a sheet  
about how to tell if you are
running an ad hoc network for a variety of OS flavors, and have sent  
a detailed suggestion to that effect
to the IAOC. There should be sufficient resources in the IETF  
community to do this for even the fairly old
flavors; a simple note at the bottom saying that if your OS is not  
included, email [email-masked], should
catch any missed the first time around.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

On Nov 11, 2005, at 1:27 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

>> The evidence seems to identify systems as the culprits with  
>> operating  systems that have not been upgraded in the last half- 
>> decade.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:56:23 -0800 (PST)

In 19 days, this very hotel and meeting rooms will be filled with ICANN
attendees, most of whom are not "technical" in our sense of the word. That
should be lots of fun :-)

I am sure they could use some volunteers if you feel like coming back.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen 
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:15:12 -0500

> should be lots of fun :-)

It will be interesting to see if ICANN has as much trouble, or IEEE  
during the intermediate week.

I have heard an interesting bit of anecdotal evidence that indicates  
the situation is worse at IETF meetings then at other meetings.  I  
questioned it, but who knows?

a.