Re(4): [67ATTENDEES] IETF 67 Network goes down at 12:00

"Peter Lovell" <peter.lovell@sparta.com> Mon, 13 November 2006 23:15 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjl13-0004UV-6A; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:15:01 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjl10-0004UM-Tf for 67attendees@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:14:58 -0500
Received: from m4.sparta.com ([157.185.61.2]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjl0y-0000CF-Jx for 67attendees@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:14:58 -0500
Received: from Beta5.sparta.com (beta5.sparta.com [157.185.63.21]) by M4.sparta.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kADNEir3030768; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:14:45 -0600
Received: from nemo.columbia.ads.sparta.com (nemo.columbia.sparta.com [157.185.80.75]) by Beta5.sparta.com (8.12.11/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kADNEh4A016378; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:14:44 -0600
Received: from [192.168.0.7] ([157.185.80.253]) by nemo.columbia.ads.sparta.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:14:42 -0500
From: Peter Lovell <peter.lovell@sparta.com>
To: Jim Martin <jim@daedelus.com>
Subject: Re(4): [67ATTENDEES] IETF 67 Network goes down at 12:00
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:14:41 -0500
Message-Id: <20061113231441.1947189493@127.0.0.1>
In-Reply-To: <147DAF3B-F6F1-4044-93DA-3A294A93422D@daedelus.com>
References: <EE8D912486CB3B40978DC42135F2BF8C88A733@ma02exchtmp01.Cantata.com> <BADDD6BD-EB92-4893-8C62-718AF5A49CAC@multicasttech.com> <A0927308-C51A-4C31-A395-BEDBDF3CFB86@mit.edu> <20061113134147.GF5131@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20061113221430.453823151@127.0.0.1> <147DAF3B-F6F1-4044-93DA-3A294A93422D@daedelus.com>
X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail version 5.5 build 4456 English (intel) <http://www.ctmdev.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Nov 2006 23:14:43.0092 (UTC) FILETIME=[8074BD40:01C70779]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d
Cc: 67attendees@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: 67attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF 67 Attendess <67attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/67attendees>, <mailto:67attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/67attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:67attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:67attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/67attendees>, <mailto:67attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: 67attendees-bounces@ietf.org

>
>On Nov 13, 2006, at 2:14 PM, Peter Lovell wrote:
>
>> I also had excellent results all week. This was with 802.11a, which is
>> built-in on recent Macs. I'm not sure how far back it goes, perhaps  
>> all
>> Intel-based MacBook/MacBook Pro's.
>
>	Glad you had a good experience!
>
>	Alas, this seems to have been a short-lived win. Indeed all the Core  
>Duo MacBooks and MacBook Pros have an Atheros A/B/G card, but the OS  
>doesn't support selecting A over B/G, unless you have A only (or B/G  
>only) SSIDs. This is why we had the ietf67a and ietf67b SSIDs for the  
>specific technologies.
>
>	Unfortunately, with the release of the new Core 2 Duo based units,  
>Apple switched from A/B/G to B/G/pre-N. This makes sense, since that  
>keeps all their technologies at 2.4G (one antenna), and fits with  
>Steve's clearly stated belief that 802.11a isn't relevant. The bummer  
>is that 802.11a is much more suited to high density, high demand/ 
>performance "enterprise" networks like the IETF.
>
>>
>> Kudos to the network crew.
>
>	Many thanks!
>
>	- Jim
>
>


That's exactly what I do have. And thanks to the excellent instructions
I did select "a", as (this being new) I wouldn't have recognized the
difference otherwise.

Cheers.....Peter


_______________________________________________
67ATTENDEES mailing list
67ATTENDEES@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/67attendees