I also have seen "ietf58" as an ad-hoc network (or "Computer to Computer Network" as Apple calls it) in several locations today, including here in Salon C. I have to wonder if this is just cluelessness or malicious behaviour, someone trying to "steal" packets. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxx URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Roland Bless wrote: > Hi, > > > We have been getting some reports of rooted machines (IETF Attendee machines, > > not IETF NOC Machines) that are scanning and causing a lot of traffic on the > > network. IP Addresses are: > > 130.129.139.106 > > 130.129.139.203 > > Please check your machines for these addresses. If they are yours, please > > stop by the terminal room, and ask for help. > > It's not only this, but people are still running their cards in ad-hoc mode. > While I'm not an expert on this, I just saw several cards in ad-hoc mode > in Salon B (mip6 session). > There is an ongoing AODV test and I asked the guys at the help desk whether > there may be problems with WLAN infrastructure. They said, "oh no, as long > as the ssid is different from ietf58, there should be no problem". However, > I just saw my card (in managed mode) connecting to a card in ad-hoc mode > with a different ssid than ietf58 (I scanned that with my PDA at the same time). > My Orinoco card has the latest firmware (8.72) and possibly my linux driver > is broken, but obviously there exists this subtle difference between theory > and practice (at least for my configuration, sorry). This is really annoying, > because it happened several times today. > Besides the fact that I've also seen cards in ad-hoc mode advertising "ietf58", > I was wondering what others think about interference between ad-hoc mode and > infrastructure mode. > > > We are monitoring the mailing list 58crew@xxxxxxxx for problems. > > Comments, suggestions, issues are very welcome here. > > We would rather hear of a problem many times on the list, then not at all or > > by way of rumor through the meetings. Please let us know your concerns. > > Thanks for your support, > Roland >