Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... Last
[#] Wed Jun 01 2011 18:53:54 EDT from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Try disabling your primary router's wireless interface and then see if anything connects to the secondary AP. That will at least rule out any interference.

[#] Wed Jun 01 2011 23:51:09 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I think I see what I'm doing wrong: I'm an idiot, and I never grokked networking.
I should be doing this:
http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Universal_Wireless_Repeater
although I still don't see why the other way doesn't work, unless the other network I am bridgeing has to be wired, but it doesn't sa y that.

[#] Thu Jun 02 2011 09:32:02 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That sounds like it will work if you don't have any Ethernet plugged into the new router, but if you're just looking to cover your elephantine house with multiple access points, you want this:

http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Wireless_Access_Point#Roaming_access

Short answer: set all AP's to the same SSID, same security settings, but different channels. And of course you want to disable DHCP in both directions on any device you don't want acting as a router.

Or you could buy a smaller house. :)

Or you might consider something even more simple. Your primary AP is the Verizon/Actiontec and is in a less than optimal location, right? You might consider simply disabling its wireless entirely (or change its SSID and security so your client devices don't hit it) and then put the DD-WRT router in a central location in the house where everyone will pick up the signal clearly.

Finally -- if you have any friends within a 10 mile radius who are highly skilled with networking and eager to help you out, you could invite them over to help.

[#] Thu Jun 02 2011 16:17:30 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

the moving to the central part of the house part is the problem. :-)
I haven't explored all the possibilities yet of access around the house, but letting the wireless part work itself out is fine by me.
Thanks.

[#] Mon Jun 06 2011 14:27:52 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I did one of the things, so now I have two SSIDs coming up and myphone phone picks up the stronger one, so voila it works. Yay.
Finally something works.

[#] Thu Jun 09 2011 13:19:34 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Riddle me this, Batman.

Based on 802.1t-2001, the spanning tree cost of a 1 Gbps link is 20,000; the cost of a 10 Gbps link is 2,000.

This means that when there is a 1 Tbps technology available, its spanning tree cost will be 20, and the spanning tree cost of a 20 Tbps link will be 1.

Based on existing technologies, it is more likely that there will be 10 Tbps Ethernet with a spanning tree cost of 2. So what happens when there is 100 Tbps Ethernet? And then 1 Pbps Ethernet?

Will we have to abandon Spanning Tree? (pleasepleasepleaseplease...)

[#] Thu Jun 09 2011 17:37:50 EDT from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Considering that there's an ITU-T effort to come out with a stnadardized Ethernet ring protection protocol, G.8032, a.k.a. ERPS, there's hopefully a good chance that STP will be phased out.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the IEEE issues another revision of STP to accomodate higher link speeds. They already did it back in 2004 to expand the link cost field.

BTW, here's Wikipedia's page on ERPS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_Ring_Protection_Switching

And Extreme Network's EAPS has been standardized as RFC-3619 since 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_Automatic_Protection_Switching

Also, there's an IETF effort to use a link-state protocol, similar to OSPF or IS-IS, at the data-link layer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRILL_%28Computer_Networking%29

We shall have to see!
Spanning Binder

[#] Thu Jun 09 2011 19:10:47 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I was told by a Juniper salesdroid that although EAPS is an open RFC, it requires a patent license from Extreme Networks in order to implement. Is that true?

[#] Fri Jun 10 2011 12:10:54 EDT from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I think as with any concept and patents, it all depends on how you implement it. The RFC for EAPS, RFC-3619, is rather vague about the details of the protocol, and the RFC is categorized as "Informational," which, if I underdstand it correctly, means it's not meant as an official standard.

Here's a link to the RFC if you'd like to read it:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3619

I did a quick google for "eaps patent" and came up with this:

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090252030

Reading the RFC and the patent, it does look like, at face value, that the RFC mentions behavior that is protected by the patent. As always, though, the devil's in the details. Since the RFC is rather vague, that leaves a lot of implementation details open for interpretation, so it's definitely possible to implement EAPS without requiring a patent license.
EAPS Binder

[#] Tue Jun 14 2011 12:52:18 EDT from monochrome @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Anyone have experience with SHA-2 (SHA-256) SSL certs? We've got a requirement from the feds to have a SHA-2 cert for some stuff we're doing, but it seems SHA-2 only works on WinXPSP3+ (and I'm sure all sorts of Linux, so don't preach :-) And I have so far only found Digicert as an issuer of SHA-2. Other options? Anyone deployed w/SHA-2 certs?

[#] Tue Jun 14 2011 23:01:05 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That pretty much sums it up, actually. At some point we will get to the stage where SHA-2 has been around long enough that anyone who doesn't have it, has so many other problems that it's not really worth dealing with (which is how a lot of webmasters now feel about IE 6).

We have some folks that deal with Visa and MasterCard, who are positively tyrannical about security. When special cryptographic requirements are dealt out that will harm compatibility with other clients, the usual solution is to deploy the same service on two different sites with different levels of cryptography.

[#] Wed Jun 15 2011 10:37:13 EDT from monochrome @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yup. We'll have to have a sha2.irbmanager.com and login.irbmanager.com for some time to come. Too bad.

[#] Thu Jun 16 2011 16:17:31 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

why don't you just install sha-1 twice?

[#] Thu Jun 16 2011 17:01:53 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

don't you have to encrypt sha-1 the second time you install it?

[#] Thu Jun 16 2011 18:29:52 EDT from monochrome @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It's SHA-2, not Double-SHA... Though that worked for Triple-DES :-)

[#] Fri Jun 17 2011 15:29:15 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I have a very dim view of strong crypto. Any cipher that the government allows ordinary people to use, they've already figured out how to break in real time.
Nobody else has the time and resources to break any reasonable cipher, so there's really no point in carefully choosing a cipher. Even a 56-bit DES encryption will fend off attacks of opportunity.

[#] Fri Jun 17 2011 15:33:14 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


But now that computers are faster, 'ordinary' people can brute force weaker crypto methods, if my understanding of the issue is correct.

[#] Sat Jun 18 2011 19:08:21 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I have and use an implementation of blowfish. I use it because it was simple to plug in. wikipedia or something like that says it's never been busted, but looking at it, and not being a crypto guy, it really doesn't seem all that bad.
No part of the preceeding data has any effect on any other part of the data's encryption. How good can that possibly be.

[#] Mon Jun 20 2011 10:30:40 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Umm ... what do mean by "have and use an implementation" ?? Are you actually embedding a single-cipher crypto layer into something instead of using an SSL library?

[#] Tue Jun 21 2011 15:12:41 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Umm ... what do mean by "have and use an implementation" ?? Are you
actually embedding a single-cipher crypto layer into something instead

of using an SSL library?

Yes.
Although at the moment I'm having a hard time remembering what I use it for.

Go to page: First ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... Last