[174946] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Schiel)
Mon Oct 6 11:06:51 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:04:55 -0600
From: John Schiel <jschiel@flowtools.net>
To: Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141003222627.GA1424@bamboo.slabnet.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 10/03/2014 04:26 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
> On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:01:21 -0600, John Schiel <jschiel@flowtools.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/03/2014 03:23 PM, Keenan Tims wrote:
>>>> The question here is what is authorized and what is not. Was this
>>>> to protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from
>>>> captive customers.
>>> I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
>>> outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of
>>> physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
>>> spectrum.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>
>>> My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue AP
>>> detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or
>>> "administrative" (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but
>>> interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC
>>> regulations.
>>>
>>> Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this
>>> 'interference',
>>> which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally
>>> interfere.
>>
>> I would expect interfering for defensive purposes **only** would be
>> acceptable.
>
> What constitutes "defensive purposes"?
Whoa, lots of replies this weekend.
I haven't made my way through all of them but the point was to try and
protect your network from an offensive device. It seems though, if you
are law abiding and follow the FCC rules, you **cannot** protect
yourself very well using the wireless spectrum. Need to do some more
reading I guess.
--John
>
>>
>> --John
>>
>>>
>>> K
>>
>
