One thing I have heard from the trenches is that the WLAN would be a lot easier to set up and debug if - the IETF owned its own base stations - and these were selected for their functionality for supporting large meetings with lots of RFI (i.e., as opposed to having to take whatever the sponsors donate). Do you think that this would solve the problem ? My back of the envelope says that this would represent a $ 50 to $100 K initial investment, plus shipping costs. Regards Marshall Eubanks On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:08:51 -0600 "Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch" <karen.odonoghue@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Folks, > > After a few days of decompressing, I have been considering > what to say that is helpful without unnecessarily prolonging > this conversation. I have been involved in the delivery of > wireless for six IETF meetings (#s 46, 56, 58, 60, 61, and 62), > some less painful than others and four without hosts. For those > commenting on how a familiar venue should help and wasn't it > better last time we were in Minneapolis, I distinctly remember > sitting in the health club hot tub at the end of IETF58 swearing > I would never do the wireless again. Believe me, it wasn't > better last time. For whatever reason, Minneapolis hasn't been > kind to IETF wireless recently. > > As I wrote this it got longer and longer, so the abridged version is: > - We had problems on Monday, but we believed the wlan to > be operational (albeit without IPv6) with a few obscure > problem reports from Tuesday onward. If people were > indeed experiencing debilitating problems all week, then it > is unfortunate that we were not aware of the issues. > - We can document lessons learned and recommendations > for future hosts, but I believe the current model for > providing wireless to attendees is broken and needs to be > fixed. I would be happy to participate in the discussion on > how to fix this. These discussions should probably take place > off this already overloaded list. > > So, unless you want gory details and rambling... you can stop > reading here... > > Technical Summary/Issues: > - We had no wireless hardware one week before we were > scheduled to install the wireless. We twisted arms to get > hardware and support from two companies who really > stepped up at the last moment. We started the wireless > install on Friday, March 4th. > - We did not deploy anything new or experimental. We > deployed what we had available. In the case of the > wireless, the alternative was about a dozen Cisco 350s > the secretariat had stashed away in case of emergency. > We did what we have done for the past two IETF > meetings - only with a different combination of > equipment in a different venue. The addition of 802.11a > did not add complexity and if anything improved the > situation by moving some of our wireless users out of > the b/g range. I would agree that we could drop the wep > and .1x portions, but again, this worked fine for the > previous two events. Believe me, we are very risk > adverse. > - After a surprisingly easy install, we had a meltdown > Monday morning at the beginning of the first session. > This meltdown and the following shockwaves on > Monday resulted from some less than optimal > deployment decisions, a configuration issue, a bug in > the deployed code, and some unforeseen interactions > with the infrastructure. In an attempt to stabilize things, > we shed a number of capabilities culminating in a > downgrade of controller code on Monday night. I > would like to say that we did this in a careful and > reasoned fashion, but I will admit there was a fair > amount of chaos. > - Tuesday morning we wandered around trying to see > how things were going. Most people we talked to > seemed happy enough at the time but willing to tell us > war stories from Monday. (Thank you, but we already > knew Monday was bad.) We were getting sporadic > reports of IP connectivity problems, but we couldn't > seem to catch anyone actively experiencing the > problem. I sent out email soliciting input from people > experiencing or having experienced the problem > sometime after Monday. I received a total of four > responses over the next two days. > - At this point, we considered moving to more current > code, but the reports we were getting indicated that > things were working. Because our perception at that > point was that things were working, we made a decision > on Tuesday evening not to upgrade. > - We don't really have a good way to measure the user > experience. In this case, we thought the wireless was > mostly working. I asked for gentle feedback during the > meeting. With the exception of Steve Casner who > patiently reported back to us, we received basically > nothing. The helpdesk was also tracking problems for > us and again after Monday received very few reports. > - Until the flood of email started on Friday, we believed > that we had delivered a working wireless network (after > Monday) and with an occasional problem that impacted > a small subset of users but was not debilitating. > > Structural/Administrative Issues: > - I do not see much motivation for hosts (or vendors for a > meeting without a host) to support the IETF network. > The risk to benefit ratio is just too high. They can get > much better exposure in environments that are less > stressful and that they have more control over. > - Advanced staging helps to reduce configuration issues > and allows more time for operational troubleshooting > onsite. This can't happen when you don't have a host or > contract out the service. > > So where do we go from here...Well, we have been asked to > document our lessons learned. While we can do this, it seems > to me that there are new issues that bite us each time (e.g. one > time we had APs that rebooted every time a certain threshold > of clients was reached. The code was eventually fixed. The > problem doesn't exist anymore.) We can provide guidelines > and experiences, but war stories from the world of IETF > wireless deployments don't seem that useful. I would be happy > to work to document the basic guidelines that we use, but > generally there is a set of constraints that complicate things - > like having no hardware. The key to improving the reliability is > continuity between meetings and the current model does not > support that. > > Given the trouble the IETF has with getting sponsors for the > meetings, perhaps it is time to revisit our model of operation. If > we want the network (including wireless) as a production > service, then perhaps we should contract out that service to an > entity that would be responsible for it and could sustain more > continuity than the current model allows. This naturally costs > money. There are people out there that will do this for the right > price. I would be happy to hand over my green dot to someone > properly resourced to do the job. > > Karen O'Donoghue _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf