Jeff Lieberman HEY

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Hi Jeff,
Jeff, its me airhead. I was wondering if you would look at thread 'WET11 Ad
Hoc 'dated 12-10. I have been discussing this for a fews days with CRB and
need the masters opinion. All others input welcome.
5 answers Last reply
More about jeff lieberman
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:47:48 -0600, "Airhead"
    <campbell@alliancecable.net> wrote:

    >Jeff, its me airhead.

    Now what?

    >I was wondering if you would look at thread 'WET11 Ad
    >Hoc 'dated 12-10. I have been discussing this for a fews days with CRB and
    >need the masters opinion. All others input welcome.

    Well, you're doing fine at prying the numerical details out of Mr.
    CRB. I can usually humiliate the person asking and extract the
    necessary details in about two replies. You're on #5 and gaining.
    Please read any of my replies for clues on methods of intimidating and
    prying loose information from people who suffer from FON (fear of
    numbers). You also missed several opportunities to scream at him for
    paraphrasing MAC addresses and excessively trimming diagnostic output.

    Incidentally, I don't think that Ad-Hoc uses "random" MAC addresses as
    you claim. It uses either the MAC address of the WET11 or the cloned
    address of the connected ethernet card if so configured.

    The last message:
    UOidnbly5YW9ViPcRVnyjQ@giganews.com
    seems to show that he's done all the right tests, tried all
    permutations of configurations, disabled the firewall, tried other
    computahs, and tested the WET11's with an access point. I can't think
    of anything more to try with the two WET11's.

    Well, maybe not. See:
    http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2002/09/11/wet11.html
    in the section starting with "wet 11 useless". Are there any extra
    devices (hub or switch) between the WET11 and the computah?

    My best suggestion is to introduce a 3rd (or 4th) Ad-Hoc radio into
    the puzzle and test it with either or both WET11. Preferably, it
    should NOT be a WET11 to take possible firmware issues out of the
    picture. It should also be on an unrelated computah to avoid any
    possible computer related configuration issues. Try various
    combinations of computahs and wireless bridges. Maybe a pattern or
    culprit will be evident. Anyway, this is your thread. You deal with
    it.


    --
    # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    # 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    # jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    # jeffl@cruzio.com AE6KS
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "> >Jeff, its me airhead.
    >
    > Now what?

    You have a great sense of humor!

    >
    > >I was wondering if you would look at thread 'WET11 Ad
    > >Hoc 'dated 12-10. I have been discussing this for a fews days with
    CRB and
    > >need the masters opinion. All others input welcome.
    >
    > Well, you're doing fine at prying the numerical details out of Mr.
    > CRB. I can usually humiliate the person asking and extract the
    > necessary details in about two replies. You're on #5 and gaining.
    > Please read any of my replies for clues on methods of intimidating
    and
    > prying loose information from people who suffer from FON (fear of
    > numbers). You also missed several opportunities to scream at him
    for
    > paraphrasing MAC addresses and excessively trimming diagnostic
    output.

    I am practicing on this.
    >
    > Incidentally, I don't think that Ad-Hoc uses "random" MAC addresses
    as
    > you claim. It uses either the MAC address of the WET11 or the
    cloned
    > address of the connected ethernet card if so configured.

    Well, I didnt quite understand it either, maybe you can clairfiy it.
    I got it from 7.1.3.3.3 of the 802.11 1999 standards.

    BSSID field
    "The value of this field in an IBSS is a locally administered IEEE MAC
    address formed from
    a 46 bit random number generated according to the procedure in 11.1.3.
    This mechanism
    is used to provide a high propability of selecting a unique BSSID."

    Reading 11.1.3 even makes it more confusing, but it says it generates
    th lasr 46 bits randomly
    an the remaing bits are as in 802 1990.

    So, I dont understand this, maybe you can explain it to me so I dont
    go telling other people
    foolish stuff like this.

    >
    > The last message:
    > UOidnbly5YW9ViPcRVnyjQ@giganews.com
    > seems to show that he's done all the right tests, tried all
    > permutations of configurations, disabled the firewall, tried other
    > computahs, and tested the WET11's with an access point. I can't
    think
    > of anything more to try with the two WET11's.
    >
    > Well, maybe not. See:
    > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2002/09/11/wet11.html
    > in the section starting with "wet 11 useless". Are there any extra
    > devices (hub or switch) between the WET11 and the computah?
    >
    > My best suggestion is to introduce a 3rd (or 4th) Ad-Hoc radio into
    > the puzzle and test it with either or both WET11. Preferably, it
    > should NOT be a WET11 to take possible firmware issues out of the
    > picture. It should also be on an unrelated computah to avoid any
    > possible computer related configuration issues. Try various
    > combinations of computahs and wireless bridges. Maybe a pattern or
    > culprit will be evident. Anyway, this is your thread. You deal
    with
    > it.

    Thanks, I was going to give it to your for Christmas.


    >
    >
    > --
    > # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    > # 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    > # jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    > # jeffl@cruzio.com AE6KS
  3. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Airhead" <campbell@alliancecable.net> wrote in message
    news:41c01f63$0$800$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com...
    >
    >>
    >> Incidentally, I don't think that Ad-Hoc uses "random" MAC addresses
    > as
    >> you claim. It uses either the MAC address of the WET11 or the
    > cloned
    >> address of the connected ethernet card if so configured.
    >
    > Well, I didnt quite understand it either, maybe you can clairfiy it.
    > I got it from 7.1.3.3.3 of the 802.11 1999 standards.
    >
    > BSSID field
    > "The value of this field in an IBSS is a locally administered IEEE MAC
    > address formed from
    > a 46 bit random number generated according to the procedure in 11.1.3.
    > This mechanism
    > is used to provide a high propability of selecting a unique BSSID."

    You read correctly. The MAC addresses crb listed are locally administered,
    as required by this clause (the giveaway is that the first byte is 0x02). In
    an infrastructure network, the MAC of the AP is the BSSID - but the AP "is"
    the network, in the sense that it is not a client and it is the gate to the
    distribution system. In an ad-hoc network, no client "is the network in this
    way, and a BSSID is invented to distinguish the "net" from the participating
    clients.

    It seems to me that in crb's case, both clients are trying to start the
    ad-hoc net. Only one station should generate a BSSID, others should be
    trying to join the net if it exists. Joiners should use their own MAC
    addresses.

    I'm not completely clear on the details, but in an IBSS any station can
    generate a beacon, and in fact multiple stations can issue a beacon
    concurrently. A client trying to join passively scans - i.e., first listens
    for one or more beacons from *some* station, with the desired SSID - or else
    actively scans (sends a probe with the desired SSID and waits for a reponse
    from any station). If a beacon or a probe response is received from any
    station in the IBSS - doesn't matter which - the joiner now knows the BSSID.
    Since any station can beacon or respond to probes, the BSSID should not be
    associated with any particular one. Hence the randomized
    locally-admininstered MAC.

    I don't know if there is a config issue or not. But it does sound like the
    second station is not trying to join, it's trying to start a net. Try
    bringing one station up first, then the other. Maybe if they both start at
    the same time, they both probe and get no response, so decide to create the
    net. Or maybe one has to somehow be configured to only be a joiner. How this
    is done is an implementation detail not addressed in the standard.

    >
    > Reading 11.1.3 even makes it more confusing, but it says it generates
    > th lasr 46 bits randomly
    > an the remaing bits are as in 802 1990.
    >
    > So, I dont understand this, maybe you can explain it to me so I dont
    > go telling other people
    > foolish stuff like this.
    >
    >>
    >> The last message:
    >> UOidnbly5YW9ViPcRVnyjQ@giganews.com
    >> seems to show that he's done all the right tests, tried all
    >> permutations of configurations, disabled the firewall, tried other
    >> computahs, and tested the WET11's with an access point. I can't
    > think
    >> of anything more to try with the two WET11's.
    >>
    >> Well, maybe not. See:
    >> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2002/09/11/wet11.html
    >> in the section starting with "wet 11 useless". Are there any extra
    >> devices (hub or switch) between the WET11 and the computah?
    >>
    >> My best suggestion is to introduce a 3rd (or 4th) Ad-Hoc radio into
    >> the puzzle and test it with either or both WET11. Preferably, it
    >> should NOT be a WET11 to take possible firmware issues out of the
    >> picture. It should also be on an unrelated computah to avoid any
    >> possible computer related configuration issues. Try various
    >> combinations of computahs and wireless bridges. Maybe a pattern or
    >> culprit will be evident. Anyway, this is your thread. You deal
    > with
    >> it.
    >
    > Thanks, I was going to give it to your for Christmas.
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    >> # 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    >> # jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    >> # jeffl@cruzio.com AE6KS
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "gary" <pleasenospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:eZ7wd.40236$bP2.12015@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    > "Airhead" <campbell@alliancecable.net> wrote in message
    > news:41c01f63$0$800$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com...
    > >
    > >>
    > >> Incidentally, I don't think that Ad-Hoc uses "random" MAC addresses
    > > as
    > >> you claim. It uses either the MAC address of the WET11 or the
    > > cloned
    > >> address of the connected ethernet card if so configured.
    > >
    > > Well, I didnt quite understand it either, maybe you can clairfiy it.
    > > I got it from 7.1.3.3.3 of the 802.11 1999 standards.
    > >
    > > BSSID field
    > > "The value of this field in an IBSS is a locally administered IEEE MAC
    > > address formed from
    > > a 46 bit random number generated according to the procedure in 11.1.3.
    > > This mechanism
    > > is used to provide a high propability of selecting a unique BSSID."
    >
    > You read correctly. The MAC addresses crb listed are locally administered,
    > as required by this clause (the giveaway is that the first byte is 0x02).
    In
    > an infrastructure network, the MAC of the AP is the BSSID - but the AP
    "is"
    > the network, in the sense that it is not a client and it is the gate to
    the
    > distribution system. In an ad-hoc network, no client "is the network in
    this
    > way, and a BSSID is invented to distinguish the "net" from the
    participating
    > clients.
    >
    > It seems to me that in crb's case, both clients are trying to start the
    > ad-hoc net. Only one station should generate a BSSID, others should be
    > trying to join the net if it exists. Joiners should use their own MAC
    > addresses.
    >
    > I'm not completely clear on the details, but in an IBSS any station can
    > generate a beacon, and in fact multiple stations can issue a beacon
    > concurrently. A client trying to join passively scans - i.e., first
    listens
    > for one or more beacons from *some* station, with the desired SSID - or
    else
    > actively scans (sends a probe with the desired SSID and waits for a
    reponse
    > from any station). If a beacon or a probe response is received from any
    > station in the IBSS - doesn't matter which - the joiner now knows the
    BSSID.
    > Since any station can beacon or respond to probes, the BSSID should not be
    > associated with any particular one. Hence the randomized
    > locally-admininstered MAC.

    Thanks for the explanation, I now understand (somewhat better) why it is
    randomized.
    It is kind of confusing though, I guess I need to be an ad hoc client to
    totally understand.


    >
    > I don't know if there is a config issue or not. But it does sound like the
    > second station is not trying to join, it's trying to start a net. Try
    > bringing one station up first, then the other. Maybe if they both start at
    > the same time, they both probe and get no response, so decide to create
    the
    > net. Or maybe one has to somehow be configured to only be a joiner. How
    this
    > is done is an implementation detail not addressed in the standard.

    This is worth a try. I think crb hs given up and says they just dont workin
    ad hoc.....
    but we shall see.
    >
    > >
    > > Reading 11.1.3 even makes it more confusing, but it says it generates
    > > th lasr 46 bits randomly
    > > an the remaing bits are as in 802 1990.
    > >
    > > So, I dont understand this, maybe you can explain it to me so I dont
    > > go telling other people
    > > foolish stuff like this.
    > >
    > >>
    > >> The last message:
    > >> UOidnbly5YW9ViPcRVnyjQ@giganews.com
    > >> seems to show that he's done all the right tests, tried all
    > >> permutations of configurations, disabled the firewall, tried other
    > >> computahs, and tested the WET11's with an access point. I can't
    > > think
    > >> of anything more to try with the two WET11's.
    > >>
    > >> Well, maybe not. See:
    > >> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2002/09/11/wet11.html
    > >> in the section starting with "wet 11 useless". Are there any extra
    > >> devices (hub or switch) between the WET11 and the computah?
    > >>
    > >> My best suggestion is to introduce a 3rd (or 4th) Ad-Hoc radio into
    > >> the puzzle and test it with either or both WET11. Preferably, it
    > >> should NOT be a WET11 to take possible firmware issues out of the
    > >> picture. It should also be on an unrelated computah to avoid any
    > >> possible computer related configuration issues. Try various
    > >> combinations of computahs and wireless bridges. Maybe a pattern or
    > >> culprit will be evident. Anyway, this is your thread. You deal
    > > with
    > >> it.
    > >
    > > Thanks, I was going to give it to your for Christmas.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    > >> # 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    > >> # jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    > >> # jeffl@cruzio.com AE6KS
    > >
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Airhead wrote:

    > "gary" <pleasenospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    > news:eZ7wd.40236$bP2.12015@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >>"Airhead" <campbell@alliancecable.net> wrote in message
    >>news:41c01f63$0$800$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com...
    >>
    >>>>Incidentally, I don't think that Ad-Hoc uses "random" MAC addresses
    >>>
    >>>as
    >>>
    >>>>you claim. It uses either the MAC address of the WET11 or the
    >>>
    >>>cloned
    >>>
    >>>>address of the connected ethernet card if so configured.
    >>>
    >>>Well, I didnt quite understand it either, maybe you can clairfiy it.
    >>>I got it from 7.1.3.3.3 of the 802.11 1999 standards.
    >>>
    >>>BSSID field
    >>>"The value of this field in an IBSS is a locally administered IEEE MAC
    >>>address formed from
    >>>a 46 bit random number generated according to the procedure in 11.1.3.
    >>>This mechanism
    >>>is used to provide a high propability of selecting a unique BSSID."
    >>
    >>You read correctly. The MAC addresses crb listed are locally administered,
    >>as required by this clause (the giveaway is that the first byte is 0x02).
    >
    > In
    >
    >>an infrastructure network, the MAC of the AP is the BSSID - but the AP
    >
    > "is"
    >
    >>the network, in the sense that it is not a client and it is the gate to
    >
    > the
    >
    >>distribution system. In an ad-hoc network, no client "is the network in
    >
    > this
    >
    >>way, and a BSSID is invented to distinguish the "net" from the
    >
    > participating
    >
    >>clients.
    >>
    >>It seems to me that in crb's case, both clients are trying to start the
    >>ad-hoc net. Only one station should generate a BSSID, others should be
    >>trying to join the net if it exists. Joiners should use their own MAC
    >>addresses.
    >>
    >>I'm not completely clear on the details, but in an IBSS any station can
    >>generate a beacon, and in fact multiple stations can issue a beacon
    >>concurrently. A client trying to join passively scans - i.e., first
    >
    > listens
    >
    >>for one or more beacons from *some* station, with the desired SSID - or
    >
    > else
    >
    >>actively scans (sends a probe with the desired SSID and waits for a
    >
    > reponse
    >
    >>from any station). If a beacon or a probe response is received from any
    >>station in the IBSS - doesn't matter which - the joiner now knows the
    >
    > BSSID.
    >
    >>Since any station can beacon or respond to probes, the BSSID should not be
    >>associated with any particular one. Hence the randomized
    >>locally-admininstered MAC.
    >
    >
    > Thanks for the explanation, I now understand (somewhat better) why it is
    > randomized.
    > It is kind of confusing though, I guess I need to be an ad hoc client to
    > totally understand.
    >
    >
    >
    >>I don't know if there is a config issue or not. But it does sound like the
    >>second station is not trying to join, it's trying to start a net. Try
    >>bringing one station up first, then the other. Maybe if they both start at
    >>the same time, they both probe and get no response, so decide to create
    >
    > the
    >
    >>net. Or maybe one has to somehow be configured to only be a joiner. How
    >
    > this
    >
    >>is done is an implementation detail not addressed in the standard.
    >
    >
    > This is worth a try. I think crb hs given up and says they just dont workin
    > ad hoc.....
    > but we shall see.
    >
    >>>Reading 11.1.3 even makes it more confusing, but it says it generates
    >>>th lasr 46 bits randomly
    >>>an the remaing bits are as in 802 1990.
    >>>
    >>>So, I dont understand this, maybe you can explain it to me so I dont
    >>>go telling other people
    >>>foolish stuff like this.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>The last message:
    >>>> UOidnbly5YW9ViPcRVnyjQ@giganews.com
    >>>>seems to show that he's done all the right tests, tried all
    >>>>permutations of configurations, disabled the firewall, tried other
    >>>>computahs, and tested the WET11's with an access point. I can't
    >>>
    >>>think
    >>>
    >>>>of anything more to try with the two WET11's.
    >>>>
    >>>>Well, maybe not. See:
    >>>> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2002/09/11/wet11.html
    >>>>in the section starting with "wet 11 useless". Are there any extra
    >>>>devices (hub or switch) between the WET11 and the computah?
    >>>>
    >>>>My best suggestion is to introduce a 3rd (or 4th) Ad-Hoc radio into
    >>>>the puzzle and test it with either or both WET11. Preferably, it
    >>>>should NOT be a WET11 to take possible firmware issues out of the
    >>>>picture. It should also be on an unrelated computah to avoid any
    >>>>possible computer related configuration issues. Try various
    >>>>combinations of computahs and wireless bridges. Maybe a pattern or
    >>>>culprit will be evident. Anyway, this is your thread. You deal
    >>>
    >>>with
    >>>
    >>>>it.
    >>>
    >>>Thanks, I was going to give it to your for Christmas.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>--
    >>>># Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    >>>># 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    >>>># jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    >>>># jeffl@cruzio.com AE6KS
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
    Found a partial solution. See original post.
Ask a new question

Read More

Wireless Internet Wireless Networking