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(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf