Re: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless

[Carsten Bormann <cabo at tzi.org>]

On Mar 17 2005, at 19:40 Uhr, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

> they could have broken out the emergency AP's and provided worse 
> coverage to fewer areas than we had last week.  It would have been 
> better than nothing, but it would _not_ have been better than what we 
> got.

Actually, for those of us who had perfect wireless connectivity but 
couldn't get IP packets through for hours on end during most of the 
week, having some of the low-tech APs in addition to the "managed" 
infrastructure would have been nice.

The fun thing about the bugs of the infrastructure was that it looked 
different to everybody, so in hindsight it's clear that no consistent 
picture arrived at the operations team.  I'll do better reporting next 
time...  (On the other hand, some more logging by the operations people 
what they changed would have helped triggering renewed reports.)

Water under the bridge.

I still haven't heard a diagnosis that I could take home and explain to 
other people, but I certainly have a lot of FUD about "intelligent" 
wireless infrastructures in my blood after the last couple of IETFs.  
It might be a good idea for the purveyors of these boxes to come up 
with some research about what went wrong, because I'm not the only 
IETFer who influences major WLAN purchasing decisions at home (we 
continue to believe we have the second largest WLAN in all of eduroam, 
and other institutions in Germany are occasionally looking at what we 
do and why).

Gruesse, Carsten


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf