On Thursday, March 17, 2005 07:51:27 AM -0800 Tony Hain <alh-ietf(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net>
wrote:
FWIW: Those 350s were provided after a similar bad experience specifically
so there would be consistent and stable equipment available. The fact that
they are considered 'emergency' at this point shows that in fact people do
expect new features from the equipment
On the contrary, I think it reflects the realization that a dozen AP's is
not enough to provide service for O(1000) people over a dozen meeting rooms
plus lobbies, bars, restaurants, etc. Had the volunteers who built the
network been unable to get wireless hardware in time, 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. And you'd still all be
whining.
-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
Sr. Research Systems Programmer
School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf