PDA

View Full Version : Squeezebox and 802.11g



Dave Parboo
2004-04-29, 18:42
Hi There,



Having just installed a 108Mb 802.11g wireless network, I took a look
through the FAQ to see if the Squeezebox would be detrimental to the speed
of the network in any way (since it is a 802.11b device?)



Lo and behold, there is indeed a statement to the effect that the
performance of the network will be adversely affected by adding a
Squeezebox. Is this a hardware issue or firmware/software? If so, is there
any intention to address this issue?



Also, how long before we see WPA security implemented on the Squeezebox?



Many thanks for your time





Dave

Daniel Cohen
2004-04-29, 23:51
On 30/4/04 at 2:42 am +0100, Dave Parboo wrote
>Hi There,
>
>
>
>Having just installed a 108Mb 802.11g wireless network, I took a
>look through the FAQ to see if the Squeezebox would be detrimental
>to the speed of the network in any way (since it is a 802.11b
>device?)
>
>
>
>Lo and behold, there is indeed a statement to the effect that the
>performance of the network will be adversely affected by adding a
>Squeezebox. Is this a hardware issue or firmware/software? If so, is
>there any intention to address this issue?


That issue applies to all 802.11b devices, and is a hardware issue.


--
Daniel Cohen

Manager Matt
2004-04-30, 01:27
It's the nature of wireless, all .11g networks will(should) slow to accomodate .11b traffic.

To place blame... hardware standards.

Please read about Atheros Super G and enhcnced 802.11g before you turn on that capibility.

http://www.tomsnetworking.com/NeedToKnows.php

If you don't want to slow your network, you might try to find someone who wants to sell you a bridge. ;)

-Matt

---- Original Message -----
From: Dave Parboo
To: 'Slim Devices Discussion'
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:42 PM
Subject: [slim] Squeezebox and 802.11g


Hi There,

Having just installed a 108Mb 802.11g wireless network, I took a look through the FAQ to see if the Squeezebox would be detrimental
to the speed of the network in any way (since it is a 802.11b device?)

Lo and behold, there is indeed a statement to the effect that the performance of the network will be adversely affected by adding a
Squeezebox. Is this a hardware issue or firmware/software? If so, is there any intention to address this issue?

Also, how long before we see WPA security implemented on the Squeezebox?

Many thanks for your time


Dave

tasty
2004-04-30, 03:26
I've been watching this list for a couple weeks, since I bought my
SqueezeBox. One thing I'm surprised hasn't come up is a request to
read/write iTunes' play count tag. This would be a boon for me, since I
use iTunes only to manage/tag music, not to listen.

I use the play count tags to manage songs on my iPod, but since I
installed the SB, they've become out-of-date and effectively useless. I
realise that this would be a feature unique to the Windows/Mac versions
of the SlimServer, but since that's the case for iTunes support anyway,
I thought I'd ask.

Best regards, and keep up the great work.

--Richard

dean
2004-04-30, 08:47
Hi Richard,

Alas, iTunes provides a way for us to read that information, but not
write it, so we haven't really done anything with it.

-dean

On Apr 30, 2004, at 3:26 AM, tasty wrote:

> I've been watching this list for a couple weeks, since I bought my
> SqueezeBox. One thing I'm surprised hasn't come up is a request to
> read/write iTunes' play count tag. This would be a boon for me, since I
> use iTunes only to manage/tag music, not to listen.
>
> I use the play count tags to manage songs on my iPod, but since I
> installed the SB, they've become out-of-date and effectively useless. I
> realise that this would be a feature unique to the Windows/Mac versions
> of the SlimServer, but since that's the case for iTunes support anyway,
> I thought I'd ask.
>
> Best regards, and keep up the great work.
>
> --Richard
>

S. Ben Melhuish
2004-04-30, 09:23
dean blackketter wrote:

> Alas, iTunes provides a way for us to read that information, but not
> write it, so we haven't really done anything with it.

I've pondered this, as well as a plugin of some sort to allow a user to
rate tracks from the Slim remote. The best solution I've come up with
so far is to (1) require that iTunes remain running, and (2) script the
desired changes.

OS X iTunes can of course be scripted via AppleScript. Interestingly,
Windows iTunes 4.5 supposedly exposes a COM interface (see "What's new
in iTunes 4.5" in the Windows iTunes help). I haven't yet been able to
find documentation for it.

So, it seems like someone could write an abstraction layer and some Mac-
and Windows-specific code to script a running instance of iTunes, to set
play count and rating. Requiring iTunes to be running is annoying, but
I'm not sure there's a safe alternative.

-- S. Ben Melhuish

Dennis Jones
2004-05-03, 11:12
I have a buddy that is sneaky.

He was visiting the other day hanging out in my living room. I went to
do something, came back in 10 minutes and he told me my WEP key? How
did you do that I asked intrigued.

Simple he said, I restarted your Squeezebox, stepped through the
auto-setup, and during the setup it showed me your WEP key.

Smart bastard.

I personally don't care and want it to stay this way so I can quickly
get back up and running when I have to restart the box. I would hate to
have to re-input the key every time I restarted, but it would be nice
for an option to disable this *remembering* of my key.

Dennis

Dennis Jones
2004-05-03, 11:19
(I don't, and simply can not, keep up with all the slim email so sorry
if this was mentioned before)

I run two wireless networks at home a separate b and a separate g,
seems to work fine and the g does not seem to be stepping down since I
don't allow any b devices to connect to it.

Works great for me, when I first brought these two up I set their
channels far apart, don't know if I needed to do that our not?

If any network guru's want to comment on how this can or can't work
please do, I would be interested.

Thanks,

Dennis

On Apr 30, 2004, at 1:27 AM, Manager Matt wrote:

> It's the nature of wireless, all .11g networks will(should) slow to
> accomodate .11b traffic.
>
> To place blame... hardware standards.
>
> Please read about Atheros Super G and enhcnced 802.11g before you turn
> on that capibility.
>
> http://www.tomsnetworking.com/NeedToKnows.php
>
> If you don't want to slow your network, you might try to find someone
> who wants to sell you a bridge. ;)
>
> -Matt
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Parboo
> To: 'Slim Devices Discussion'
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:42 PM
> Subject: [slim] Squeezebox and 802.11g
>
>
> Hi There,
>
> Having just installed a 108Mb 802.11g wireless network, I took a look
> through the FAQ to see if the Squeezebox would be detrimental
> to the speed of the network in any way (since it is a 802.11b device?)
>
> Lo and behold, there is indeed a statement to the effect that the
> performance of the network will be adversely affected by adding a
> Squeezebox. Is this a hardware issue or firmware/software? If so, is
> there any intention to address this issue?
>
> Also, how long before we see WPA security implemented on the
> Squeezebox?
>
> Many thanks for your time
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>

seanadams
2004-05-03, 11:24
Dennis,

This is definitely a good thing to do. Just make sure they're at least
three channel numbers apart, and then the two networks will not step on
each other.

Sean

On May 3, 2004, at 11:19 AM, Dennis Jones wrote:

> (I don't, and simply can not, keep up with all the slim email so sorry
> if this was mentioned before)
>
> I run two wireless networks at home a separate b and a separate g,
> seems to work fine and the g does not seem to be stepping down since I
> don't allow any b devices to connect to it.
>
> Works great for me, when I first brought these two up I set their
> channels far apart, don't know if I needed to do that our not?
>
> If any network guru's want to comment on how this can or can't work
> please do, I would be interested.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dennis
>
> On Apr 30, 2004, at 1:27 AM, Manager Matt wrote:
>
>> It's the nature of wireless, all .11g networks will(should) slow to
>> accomodate .11b traffic.
>>
>> To place blame... hardware standards.
>>
>> Please read about Atheros Super G and enhcnced 802.11g before you
>> turn on that capibility.
>>
>> http://www.tomsnetworking.com/NeedToKnows.php
>>
>> If you don't want to slow your network, you might try to find someone
>> who wants to sell you a bridge. ;)
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> ---- Original Message -----
>> From: Dave Parboo
>> To: 'Slim Devices Discussion'
>> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:42 PM
>> Subject: [slim] Squeezebox and 802.11g
>>
>>
>> Hi There,
>>
>> Having just installed a 108Mb 802.11g wireless network, I took a look
>> through the FAQ to see if the Squeezebox would be detrimental
>> to the speed of the network in any way (since it is a 802.11b device?)
>>
>> Lo and behold, there is indeed a statement to the effect that the
>> performance of the network will be adversely affected by adding a
>> Squeezebox. Is this a hardware issue or firmware/software? If so, is
>> there any intention to address this issue?
>>
>> Also, how long before we see WPA security implemented on the
>> Squeezebox?
>>
>> Many thanks for your time
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>

Daniel Cohen
2004-05-03, 11:24
On 3/5/04 at 11:12 am -0700, Dennis Jones wrote
>I have a buddy that is sneaky.
>
>He was visiting the other day hanging out in my living room. I went
>to do something, came back in 10 minutes and he told me my WEP key?
>How did you do that I asked intrigued.
>
>Simple he said, I restarted your Squeezebox, stepped through the
>auto-setup, and during the setup it showed me your WEP key.
>
>Smart bastard.
>
>I personally don't care and want it to stay this way so I can
>quickly get back up and running when I have to restart the box. I
>would hate to have to re-input the key every time I restarted, but
>it would be nice for an option to disable this *remembering* of my
>key.

Perhaps what is needed is the common approach to passwords, credit
card numbers, etc, which is to remember the key, but display bullets,
asterisks, or zeroes instead of the actual key.
--
Daniel Cohen

kdf
2004-05-03, 11:25
Quoting Dennis Jones <dennis_jones (AT) dantz (DOT) com>:


>
> I personally don't care and want it to stay this way so I can quickly
> get back up and running when I have to restart the box. I would hate to
> have to re-input the key every time I restarted, but it would be nice
> for an option to disable this *remembering* of my key.

or perhaps a feature to disable your buddy's memory ;)
-kdf

S. Ben Melhuish
2004-05-03, 13:17
Daniel Cohen wrote:
> On 3/5/04 at 11:12 am -0700, Dennis Jones wrote
>
>> Simple he said, I restarted your Squeezebox, stepped through the
>> auto-setup, and during the setup it showed me your WEP key.
>>
>> I personally don't care and want it to stay this way so I can quickly
>> get back up and running when I have to restart the box. I would hate
>> to have to re-input the key every time I restarted, but it would be
>> nice for an option to disable this *remembering* of my key.
>
> Perhaps what is needed is the common approach to passwords, credit card
> numbers, etc, which is to remember the key, but display bullets,
> asterisks, or zeroes instead of the actual key.

This makes entering (long, difficult-to-remember) keys difficult, while
providing no real benefit for viewing.

To a certain extent, one has to expect that security will be compromised
once someone has physical access to the hardware. However, the
Squeezebox's behavior seems a little lax even by that standard, given
that more people generally have access to it than to a computer (which
might be stored in the other room, and not used when guests are over --
at least that's my situation).

A couple of proposals:

* Entering the key continues to echo the key in plaintext on the display
(to make entering easier), but viewing or re-entering the key might only
display the first couple of bytes (as a rough zeroth-order check to make
sure you're still using the right key).

* Alternately, the WEP key could be hidden behind some kind of admin
interface requiring a (short) password to access. I don't know whether
or not that's going to be easy with the current architecture; it may
only be worthwhile if there are other admin-type settings that should be
restricted.

-- S. Ben Melhuish
sben (AT) pile (DOT) org

Daniel Cohen
2004-05-03, 14:36
On 3/5/04 at 1:17 pm -0700, S. Ben Melhuish wrote
>* Entering the key continues to echo the key in plaintext on the
>display (to make entering easier), but viewing or re-entering the
>key might only display the first couple of bytes (as a rough
>zeroth-order check to make sure you're still using the right key).

Yes, that's a better version of my suggestion. Similar to the way
some credit card bills are shown with only the last four digits.
--
Daniel Cohen