[mythtv-users] [OT] Am I running out of bandwitdth?

[Graham Wood]

> I can't tell you haw many folks I have run into who say their
> wireless network is "running fine" when it is in fact dropping 75% of
> the packets and running at 1.5MB, they just don't know it because all
> they are doing is web browsing through their DSL line.
For them, it is fine.  Admittedly it's not running to spec (or however  
you would phrase what you mean), but it /is/ doing everything they  
want it to in the way they want it to.

> If you are trying to stop folks from getting free net access MAC
> filtering is effective, encryption is for stopping somebody from
> reading your traffic, which they could do down your street at a pole
> or ped if they really wanted to anyway.
I agree that those are the intentions of each, but they really do  
overlap a lot.  Anyone that knows enough to break the encryption (took  
me less than 25 minutes to hack my own network using a totally passive  
machine running airsnort) will also know enough to snoop the packets  
and grab the MAC.  If you're not encrypting, then they are transmitted  
in the clear anyway.  Yes, encryption has different stated goals, but  
has the same affect in passing.

> I'd advise MAC filtering in any case, as it has no overhead.
That depends on what you're doing with the wireless, and how you  
define overhead.  I frequently have friends come round that want to  
just use their laptops for a couple of minutes to check mail or  
similar - I'd have to get their MAC either from them or from the AP,  
and then add it.  For a "gain" that's no better than the other  
alternatives that are already out there and less intrusive for most  
users.  Must admit, I've never really noticed any "overhead" from  
using encryption either, although that may simply be that I'm just not  
taxing my wireless.

> It's true somebody could spoof your MAC addresses but they would have to
> know what address to spoof.
Which isn't particularly rocket science.... :)

Graham