[97960] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: iPhone and Network Disruptions ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Prof. Robert Mathews (OSIA))
Sun Jul 22 22:02:27 2007
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:53:07 -0400
From: "Prof. Robert Mathews (OSIA)" <mathews@hawaii.edu>
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0707212136260.18647@clifden.donelan.com>
To: North American Network Operators Group <Nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_xq07cMdYJYV9mGIL+hDKbg)
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_8kFKbxPJFZrb0EosI7MPSQ)"
--Boundary_(ID_8kFKbxPJFZrb0EosI7MPSQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sean Donelan wrote:
> Since neither Apple, Cisco nor Duke seems willing to say exactly what
> the problem was or what they fixed; not very surprising; it was
> probably a "Duh" problem unique to Duke's network.
Sean, Nanogers:
Thank you, for your responses.
Given the world of NDAs and other legal instruments, it was attempting
to understand if there were certain folks here in NANOG - that were
aware of any particular technical shortcomings, which could have caused,
or contributed to the problem. Naturally, I say this based on a
personal conjecture that NANOG members may be LESS inclined to spend
nearly $600 on a product they knew little about, in order to simply
satisfy a "coolness factor." :-)
Seriously, while I wish to not speculate, in the absence of technical
details on the situation, at least on the surface, it is troubling to me
that a mass marketed, personal, consumer device could have a potential
such as this - to disrupt an otherwise (seemingly?) stable networked
institutional environment. In a document titled: " How to Plan for
User Interest in the Apple iPhone," on 27 June 2007, Gartner had issued
a negative recommendation to organizations WRT to accommodating iPhone
use within enterprises based on their analysis of the product lacking
hooks for Outlook/Notes, and necessary security applications. Gartner
also cited Apple's commitment to focus iPhone support for individual
consumers rather than organizational users as a basis for issuing its
negative recommendation. Gartner also went on to issue another
document on 10 July 2007, titled: "iPhone First-Generation Security Is
Too Weak for Enterprises," which might be of interest (at least in an
informational sense) to some here as well.
> Otherwise it would be a shame for Apple, Cisco and Duke to not let
> other network operators that might have the same problem to know how
> to prevent it from recurring elsewhere.
Duke CIO - Tracy Futhey's statement that "...a particular set of
conditions made the Duke wireless network experience some minor and
temporary disruptions in service," where the/ "deployment of a very
large Cisco-based wireless network that supports multiple network
protocols"/ (*) seems to have been a key issue -- is frankly MORE
confusing that illuminating. Is Duke, the only U.S. university campus,
which has deployed a "very large Cisco-based campus wireless network"
that support "multiple network protocols" ?
Besides, is the 'multiple protocol' issue a 'red herring' ? By what
novel/errand protocol could the iPhones flood the Duke University Wi-Fi
network? NOT owning an iPhone, and lacking a technical familiarity
with all of its inner workings, leaves me at a disadvantage, I am
afraid. I do happen to own a nicely featured smart-phone among other
Wi-Fi devices however, and remain well acquainted on just how 'that
device' is likely to interfaces with Wi-Fi nets. In this respect, is
the *Apple iPhone an extra-ordinary device?* I ask that question to
seek clarity into the statement made by the Duke CIO, if anyone cares to
comment.
Quite frankly, my interest is to understand the range of *"failures in
interoperability"* -- either at the device level, or at the enterprise
level.
Separately, I fail to see why no one is talking; particularly due to
the fact that this event is effecting a first of a kind product release
by Apple, and also on account of the fact that there is wide publicity
now of an existing flaw in a Cisco product. I would have thought that
transparently resolving this cryptogram would have built greater public
confidence in those companies and respective products involved.
All the best,
Robert.
--
* "Update on Duke's wireless network and Apple's iPhones" [see:
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/07/cisco_apple.html Friday, July 20]
2007]
--Boundary_(ID_8kFKbxPJFZrb0EosI7MPSQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font color="#000066" face="Tahoma">Sean Donelan wrote:<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:Pine.GSO.4.64.0707212136260.18647@clifden.donelan.com"
type="cite"><font color="#000066" face="Tahoma">Since neither Apple,
Cisco nor Duke seems willing to say
exactly what the problem was or what they fixed; not very surprising;
it was probably a "Duh" problem unique to Duke's network. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#000066" face="Tahoma">Sean, Nanogers:<br>
<br>
Thank you, for your responses. <br>
<br>
Given the world of NDAs and other legal instruments, it was attempting
to understand if there were certain folks here in NANOG - that were
aware of
any particular technical shortcomings, which could have caused, or
contributed to the problem. Naturally, I say this based on a personal
conjecture that </font><font color="#000066" face="Tahoma">NANOG </font><font
color="#000066" face="Tahoma">members may be LESS inclined to spend
nearly $600 on a product they knew little about, in order to simply
satisfy a "coolness factor." :-)<br>
<br>
Seriously, while I wish to not speculate, in the absence of technical
details on
the situation, at least on the surface, it is troubling to me
that a mass marketed, personal, consumer device could have a potential
such as this - to
disrupt an otherwise (seemingly?) stable networked institutional
environment. In a document titled: " How to Plan for User Interest
in the Apple <span class="hiliteText">iPhone,"</span> on 27 June 2007,
Gartner had issued a negative recommendation to organizations WRT to
accommodating iPhone use within enterprises based on their analysis of
the product lacking hooks for Outlook/Notes, and necessary security
applications. Gartner also cited Apple's commitment to focus iPhone
support for individual consumers rather than organizational users as a
basis for issuing its negative recommendation. Gartner also went on
to issue another document on 10 July 2007, titled: "iPhone
First-Generation Security Is Too Weak for Enterprises," which might be
of interest (at least in an informational sense) to some here as well.<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:Pine.GSO.4.64.0707212136260.18647@clifden.donelan.com"
type="cite"><font color="#000066" face="Tahoma">Otherwise it would be
a shame for Apple, Cisco and Duke to
not let other network operators that might have the same problem to
know how to prevent it from recurring elsewhere. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#000066" face="Tahoma">Duke CIO - Tracy Futhey's statement
that "...a particular set of conditions made the Duke
wireless network experience some minor and temporary disruptions in
service," where the<i> "deployment of a
very large Cisco-based wireless network that supports multiple network
protocols"</i> (*) seems to have been a key issue -- is frankly MORE
confusing that illuminating. Is Duke, the only U.S. university
campus, which has deployed a "very large Cisco-based campus wireless
network" that support "multiple network protocols" ? <br>
<br>
Besides, is the 'multiple protocol' issue a 'red herring' ? By what
novel/errand protocol could the iPhones flood the Duke University Wi-Fi
network? NOT owning an iPhone, and lacking a technical familiarity
with all of its inner workings, leaves me at a disadvantage, I am
afraid. I do happen to own a nicely featured smart-phone among other
Wi-Fi devices however, and remain well acquainted on just how 'that
device' is likely to interfaces with Wi-Fi nets. In this respect, is
the <b>Apple iPhone an extra-ordinary device?</b> I ask that question
to seek clarity into the statement made by the Duke CIO, if anyone
cares to comment.<br>
<br>
Quite frankly, my interest is to understand the range of <b>"failures
in interoperability"</b> -- either at the device level, or at the
enterprise level.<br>
<br>
Separately, I fail to see why no one is talking; particularly due to
the fact that this event is effecting a first of a kind product release
by Apple, and also on account of the fact that there is wide publicity
now of an existing flaw in a Cisco product. I would have thought that
transparently resolving this cryptogram would have built greater public
confidence in those companies and respective products involved. <br>
<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
Robert.<br>
--<br>
<br>
* "Update on Duke’s wireless network and Apple’s iPhones" [see: <a
href="http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/07/cisco_apple.html">http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/07/cisco_apple.html</a>
Friday, July 20] 2007]<br>
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>
--Boundary_(ID_8kFKbxPJFZrb0EosI7MPSQ)--
--Boundary_(ID_xq07cMdYJYV9mGIL+hDKbg)
Content-type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name=mathews.vcf
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: attachment; filename=mathews.vcf
begin:vcard
fn:Prof. Robert Mathews
n:Mathews;Robert
org:University of Hawai'i
adr:Wentworth Hall, Room# 2, 200 W. Kawili St. (ITO);;415 Nahua St., Ste 814 & 815 (HNL) / ;Honolulu & Hilo;HI;96815/96720;U.S.A
email;internet:mathews@Hawaii.Edu
title:Distinguished Senior Research Scholar on National Security Affairs & U.S. Industrial Preparedness
tel;work:+ 315.853.7853 (NY) / + 703.655.7124 (VA/WDC)
tel;fax:+ 315.859.1998
note;quoted-printable:This visiting card contains two distinct addresses, =
=0D=0A=
one for Honolulu Hi., and the other for Hilo, Hi. =
=0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
If writing to Prof. Mathews is your preference,=0D=0A=
then it must be noted that he can presently =
=0D=0A=
be reached through the following address, =
=0D=0A=
and it is:=0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
119 St. Mary's Avenue,=0D=0A=
Clinton, NY 13323.=0D=0A=
U.S.A
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www2.hawaii.edu/~mathews
version:2.1
end:vcard
--Boundary_(ID_xq07cMdYJYV9mGIL+hDKbg)--
