Subject: [93attendees] Hilton Guest Room Internet Update

From: Jim Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:03:16 +0200

Gentlepeople,
	First of all, I apologize for the delay in getting everyone an update on this. We know the guestroom Internet here in the Hilton has been problematic at best, and we have been working to try to improve it for the last week. As you probably know, the IETF network provides the IP layer and above for the guestrooms and public space, but the physical layer, both for the wired and wireless uses the existing hotel infrastructure. In the case here in Prague, we’ve been working closely with the hotel’s vendor, Mikenopa to deliver this service. They’ve been very willing and happy to work with us on this.

	For the wireless, we’ve lit up the “ietf-hotel” ssid on the existing APs, both in the public space and guestrooms. These are the same APs that provide the “hhonors” SSID. While the APs seem to have been originally deployed reasonably, there has been hotel building changes (mostly regarding new sprinkler systems) which has had them moved around in the hallways to very suboptimal locations. This has led to many areas having low to no signal. Additionally, their 2.4G channel assignment and power levels weren’t optimal. Mikenopa has been trying to move APs and reconfigure the channels.

	Additionally, due to our desire to use public IPv4 space, we’ve seen very high broadcast loads. This is based in the fact that we’ve got a large block that is sparsely used, and thus when we get scanned (as happens constantly from the greater Internet) we get a large amount of ARP traffic which can overload the wireless system. We’ve been working on various techniques to reduce this load.

	On the wired front, we’ve had reasonably good luck (other than about 45 minutes of downtime last night with a self inflicted wound while trying to reduce the ARP load). Please do use the wired connection in each guestroom if at all possible. If you need a cable, it’s usually in a cloth bag with a “@“ symbol on it in the desk. If you don’t have one, please feel free to come to the NOC.

	Overall, we’ve seen the ietf-hotel work reasonably well in the restaurant, lobby and hallways, but poorly (but slowly improving) in the guestrooms. We continue to work on this, but using the wired connection in your room is probably your best bet.

	- Jim

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:14:19 +0200

> 	Overall, we’ve seen the ietf-hotel work reasonably well in the restaurant, lobby and hallways, but poorly (but slowly improving) in the guestrooms. We continue to work on this, but using the wired…

Some of us bring our own APs to connect to the wire for this sort of situation. (I bought a box which turned out to be a wireless extender *sigh*, for which OpenWRT came in handy).

Are there any recommendations that you could share with respect to naming of those networks (so that neighboring rooms can share that AP) and e.g. channel choice? I mean would naming such network IETF-hotel and keeping it open interfere with anything you try to do?

I would assume:
* Use IETF-hotel as that would give the neighbors a seamless experience,
* Use a scanning app to select a channel with relatively low other signal.

More?

—Olaf

- - -
Olaf Kolkman                                                         [email-masked]
Chief Internet Technology Officer
Internet Society                                                     www.internetsociety.org
                                                                     LinkedIn: OlafKolkman
                                                                     Twitter: @Kolkman
- - -

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:32:48 +0200

Actual coordination, if practically achievable, seems like a great idea, but I'm skeptical. Short of that, if your AP allows you to set Tx power level, it would seem friendly to set it as low as possible to avoid degrading the noise floor any more than absolutely necessary.

--John

> On Jul 23, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Some of us bring our own APs to connect to the wire for this sort of situation. (I bought a box which turned out to be a wireless extender sigh, for which OpenWRT came in handy).
> 
> Olaf M. Kolkman
> Internet Society <http://www.internetsociety.org/>
> e-mail: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> LinkedIn:OlafKolkman <https://nl.linkedin.com/in/olafkolkman>
> Twitter: @Kolkman <https://twitter.com/kolkman>
> _______________________________________________
> 93attendees mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/93attendees

---

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:56:18 +0200

The problem is that the wired connection does not work in my room and the response I got after talking with the hotel vendor was use the wireless one which of course does not work. 
This is the worst network experience I had at an ietf meeting hotel
Roni

Sent from my iPad

> On 23 ביולי 2015, at 15:03, Jim Martin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Gentlepeople,

---

From: Peter Yee <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 07:04:18 -0700

A Vodafone LTE SIM (~USD 32 for 10 GB) makes a pretty good alternative in
your situation, assuming you have an unlocked phone that can serve as a
hotspot.

			-Peter

On 7/23/15, 6:56 AM, "93attendees on behalf of Roni Even"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>The problem is that the wired connection does not work in my room and the
>response I got after talking with the hotel vendor was use the wireless
>one which of course does not work.
>>    First of all, I apologize for the delay in getting everyone an
>>update on this. We know the guestroom Internet here in the Hilton has
>>been problematic at best, and we have been working to try to improve it
>>for the last week. As you probably know, the IETF network provides the
>>IP layer and above for the guestrooms and public space, but the physical
>>layer, both for the wired and wireless uses the existing hotel
>>infrastructure. In the case here in Prague, we’ve been working closely
>>with the hotel’s vendor, Mikenopa to deliver this service. They’ve been
>>very willing and happy to work with us on this.
>> 
>>    For the wireless, we’ve lit up the “ietf-hotel” ssid on the existing
>>APs, both in the public space and guestrooms. These are the same APs
>>that provide the “hhonors” SSID. While the APs seem to have been
>>originally deployed reasonably, there has been hotel building changes
>>(mostly regarding new sprinkler systems) which has had them moved around
>>in the hallways to very suboptimal locations. This has led to many areas
>>having low to no signal. Additionally, their 2.4G channel assignment and
>>power levels weren’t optimal. Mikenopa has been trying to move APs and
>>reconfigure the channels.
>> 
>>    Additionally, due to our desire to use public IPv4 space, we’ve seen
>>very high broadcast loads. This is based in the fact that we’ve got a
>>large block that is sparsely used, and thus when we get scanned (as
>>happens constantly from the greater Internet) we get a large amount of
>>ARP traffic which can overload the wireless system. We’ve been working
>>on various techniques to reduce this load.
>> 
>>    On the wired front, we’ve had reasonably good luck (other than about
>>45 minutes of downtime last night with a self inflicted wound while
>>trying to reduce the ARP load). Please do use the wired connection in
>>each guestroom if at all possible. If you need a cable, it’s usually in
>>a cloth bag with a “@“ symbol on it in the desk. If you don’t have one,
>>please feel free to come to the NOC.
>> 
>>    Overall, we’ve seen the ietf-hotel work reasonably well in the
>>restaurant, lobby and hallways, but poorly (but slowly improving) in the
>>guestrooms. We continue to work on this, but using the wired connection
>>in your room is probably your best bet.
>> 
>>    - Jim

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:56:00 -0400

Jim Martin <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > (mostly regarding new sprinkler systems) which has had them moved
    > around in the hallways to very suboptimal locations. This has led to
    > many areas having low to no signal. Additionally, their 2.4G channel
    > assignment and power levels weren’t optimal. Mikenopa has been trying
    > to move APs and reconfigure the channels.

So, a repeat of the Paris IETF effort... :-)

    > on various techniques to reduce this load.

This seems like a recurring problem, obscured only because of the
one-way-ness of NAT44; that it will get worse as we move to IPv6 everywhere
(with s/ARP/ND/).  I wonder if we need new advice to routers.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:26:15 +0200

On 7/23/15 3:32 PM, John G. Scudder wrote:
> Actual coordination, if practically achievable, seems like a great
> idea, but I'm skeptical. Short of that, if your AP allows you to
> set Tx power level, it would seem friendly to set it as low as
> possible to avoid degrading the noise floor any more than
> absolutely necessary.

If your personal ap does 5Ghz (airport express for example) that would
make it less of an attractive nuisance.

In fact mimicking the hotel APs probably increases the complexity of
reasoning about the hotel network so that's maybe not the best approach.

> --John
> 
>> On Jul 23, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked] 
>> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 
>> |Overall, we’ve seen the ietf-hotel work reasonably well in the 
>> restaurant, lobby and hallways, but poorly (but slowly
>> improving) in the guestrooms. We continue to work on this, but
>> using the wired connection in your room is probably your best
>> bet. |
>> 
>> Some of us bring our own APs to connect to the wire for this sort
>> of situation. (I bought a box which turned out to be a wireless
>> extender /sigh/, for which OpenWRT came in handy).
>> 
>> Are there any recommendations that you could share with respect
>> to naming of those networks (so that neighboring rooms can share
>> that AP) and e.g. channel choice? I mean would naming such
>> network IETF-hotel and keeping it open interfere with anything
>> you try to do?
>> 
>> I would assume: * Use IETF-hotel as that would give the neighbors
>> a seamless experience, * Use a scanning app to select a channel
>> with relatively low other signal.
>> 
>> More?
>> 
>> —Olaf
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---
Olaf M. Kolkman
>> Chief Internet Technology Officer Internet Society
>> <http://www.internetsociety.org/> e-mail: [email-masked]
>> <mailto:[email-masked]> LinkedIn:OlafKolkman
>> <https://nl.linkedin.com/in/olafkolkman> Twitter: @Kolkman
>> <https://twitter.com/kolkman>
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---
>> 93attendees mailing list [email-masked]
>> <mailto:[email-masked]> 
> _______________________________________________ 93attendees mailing
> list [email-masked]

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:29:57 +0200

> reasoning about the hotel network so that's maybe not the best approach.

Given the popularity of personal APs and the fact it will probably continue or increase, it might not be a bad idea for the NOC team to publish a list of recommended practices for minimally-antisocial use of personal APs in advance of the meeting.

--John

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:32:50 -0400

Jim, NOC folks current and past, first let me express how much I
appreciate all of the work you do at making the best of what is often a
very bad situation, in front of a demanding audience.

We were talking the other day in the Captive Portal BoF about ways to make
WiFi suck less for your average user, and it occurred to me that while
captive portals certainly contribute to this, the larger issue is the way
that WiFi networks are built and "maintained", especially when they are at
the limits of their scale. We've all had numerous experiences with really
awful "managed" infrastructure WiFi in public places, airports, hotels,
other conferences, etc. where the system was simply overwhelmed by the
demand or unable to overcome the implementation flaws, so we know that
this is a common problem.
I think that there would be real value in you and some of your fellow
AP-wranglers writing an informational Internet Draft discussing some of
the challenges you've faced and best practices you have learned while
beating wifi into submission for a high-density installation and intensive
user base over multiple years. I don't have much applicable experience to
turn into useful text myself, so I can only offer to get raw text from
other folks squashed into I-D format as an editor, if that would be
helpful. Are there other folks who think that this would be useful or are
willing to contribute?

Thanks,

Wes

On 7/23/15, 9:03 AM, "93attendees on behalf of Jim Martin"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>Gentlepeople,
>       First of all, I apologize for the delay in getting everyone an update on
>this. We know the guestroom Internet here in the Hilton has been
>problematic at best, and we have been working to try to improve it for
>the last week. As you probably know, the IETF network provides the IP
>layer and above for the guestrooms and public space, but the physical
>APs, both in the public space and guestrooms. These are the same APs that
>provide the “hhonors” SSID. While the APs seem to have been originally
>deployed reasonably, there has been hotel building changes (mostly
>regarding new sprinkler systems) which has had them moved around in the
>hallways to very suboptimal locations. This has led to many areas having
>low to no signal. Additionally, their 2.4G channel assignment and power
>levels weren’t optimal. Mikenopa has been trying to move APs and
>ARP traffic which can overload the wireless system. We’ve been working on
>various techniques to reduce this load.
>
>       On the wired front, we’ve had reasonably good luck (other than about 45
>minutes of downtime last night with a self inflicted wound while trying
>to reduce the ARP load). Please do use the wired connection in each
>guestroom if at all possible. If you need a cable, it’s usually in a
>cloth bag with a “@“ symbol on it in the desk. If you don’t have one,

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:33:59 +0200

On 7/23/15 4:29 PM, John G. Scudder wrote:
>> If your personal ap does 5Ghz (airport express for example) that
>> would make it less of an attractive nuisance.
>> 
>> In fact mimicking the hotel APs probably increases the complexity
>> of reasoning about the hotel network so that's maybe not the best
>> approach.
> 
> Given the popularity of personal APs and the fact it will probably
> continue or increase, it might not be a bad idea for the NOC team
> to publish a list of recommended practices for minimally-antisocial
> use of personal APs in advance of the meeting.

yup, I think this is in the cards.

thanks
joel

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:55:40 -0400 (EDT)

> * Use IETF-hotel as that would give the neighbors a seamless experience,

That would probably lead to several forms of pain, especially since 
we're likely using the boxes in NAT/router mode rather than AP mode.

If you really want to select a special SSID just for one meeting, I 
suggest using your room number.  For open networks, that gives others 
another piece of data to use when trying to select a good/nearby AP.

> * Use a scanning app to select a channel with relatively low other signal.

Don't most consumer grade boxes do a decent job of that already, when 
set to auto-select a channel?

-- Sam

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:28:19 -0400

On Jul 23, 2015, at 10:32 AM, George, Wes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> user base over multiple years.

I think so too, although this may be perceived as a somewhat cruel reward for all these years of hard work!

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:32:21 +0100

> On 23 Jul 2015, at 18:28, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Jul 23, 2015, at 10:32 AM, George, Wes <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Indeed, but it would be so awesome too :)

There’s this one of course, but a bit dated now (time passes so quickly!):
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~andreaf/downloads/ietf_measures.pdf <http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~andreaf/downloads/ietf_measures.pdf>

Tim

---

From: Jon Hudson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:45:10 -0700

>> On Jul 23, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Tim Chown <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
> http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~andreaf/downloads/ietf_measures.pdf

Hey! This is good!! I've never seen it.

In addition it would be nice to be able to contrast the experience at 62 and 93

My concern is that what we saw last week is not the acceptation but the new "normal"

Jon