NAC - L2 IEEE 802.1x and NAC - L2 IP differences.

Hi,
My customer is having Cisco 4507R switch with IOS version 122.31-SG1 which deosnt supports NAC - L2 IEEE 802.1x but supports NAC - L2 IP.
What is the difference between these features and which features is required for proper authentication and posture assesment.
Thanks and regards,
Pulkit Sharma

Hello,sharma
can u be more clear abt ur question.What r u trying to achieve.

Similar Messages

IEEE 802.3u and IEEE 802.3z Compatibility

Hello everyone!
Does anyone know if these 2 fiber optic SFPs are compatible with each other?
We have and old HP J4853A transceiver which is 802.3u and Cisco SFP LX Module which is 802.3z
Thank you!

Hello
For your reference, when talking about fiber transceiver you want to check the following details:
- There exists two modes: Single mode, and multi-mode, you want to make sure both use the same mode.
- Wavelenght, there are 850nm, 950nm, 1310nm.... You need to make sure it matches.
- No all switches/routers support all types of modules, so check the following compatibility matrix to make sure hardware and tranceiver are compatible.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/transceiver_modules/compatibility/matrix/OL_6981.html
Regards.
Wilson B.

Cisco Systems vs "CSIRO" 802.11a and 802.11g infringed upon the '069 patent

Hi,
any news about Cisco Systems and the "CSIRO" 802.11a and 802.11g infringed upon the '069 patent ?
http://www.buffalotech.com/products/wireless/
Dear Customer
As you may be aware, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation ("CSIRO") sued Buffalo, Inc. and Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc. ("Buffalo"), for alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 5,487,069 ("the '069 patent"). Subsequently, CSIRO also asserted its patent against the entire wireless LAN industry, including, Microsoft, Intel, Accton, SMC and Netgear.
In it's lawsuit against Buffalo, CSIRO claimed certain Buffalo wireless networking products compliant with IEEE standards 802.11a and 802.11g infringed upon the '069 patent. Buffalo believed at that time and continues to believe that there are no grounds for CSIRO's allegations of infringement. The United States district court, however, found Buffalo to infringe the '069 patent and enjoined the importation and sale of Buffalo's IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g compliant products.
CSIRO's lawsuits are against the entire wireless LAN industry and could affect the supply of wireless LAN products by any manufacturer, not just Buffalo. The entire industry is resisting CSIRO's attempts to enjoin the sale of wireless LAN products. Recently, Microsoft, 3COM Corporation, SMC Networks, Accton Technology Corporation, Intel, Atheros Communications, Belkin International, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel Networks, Nvidia Corporation, Oracle Corporation, SAP AG, Yahoo, Nokia, and the Consumer Electronics Association filed briefs in support of Buffalo's position that injunctive relief is inappropriate in this case.
During the period of time that the injunction is in effect (10/1/2007), Buffalo cannot offer for sale, sell, import, or use its IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g compliant products in the United States. A list of the products covered by the injunction is attached here . The injunction does not prohibit sales of pre-existing inventories of products by Buffalo's customers. In addition, Buffalo has secured CSIRO's agreement to permit the replacement of defective products under warranty. None of Buffalo's other products are currently affected by this injunction.
While Buffalo believes that it will be successful in reversing the district court's decision and will obtain a stay of the injunction pending a decision on the merits, the Court of Appeals has not yet issued a decision. Should the Court of Appeals issue a decision staying the injunction, you will be promptly notified. After the stay is issued or a favorable decision on the merits is obtained, Buffalo will be able to resume the supply of IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g products
Please rest assured that Buffalo continues to stand behind their products and will continue to support all of our loyal customers as it relates to product warranties, technical support and the like without interruption.

I suspect after reading the patent and the litigation that you mentioned above, that the US District Court decision will be reversed as the patent appears to be very vague in its contsruction and verbage. Furthermore, the intent to hold the IEEE hostage on the ratification of 802.11n will not bode well in the court's eyes. If in fact the case is reversed, I believe that the members of CSIRO will be in danger of lost profits litigation from Buffalo. Stay tuned to this bat channel.

Airport Express 802.11n and high speeds *impossible*

Hi there,
well I have been playing around for the last 24-48hrs with an AirportExpress 802.11n wiht the latest firmware on it, to achieve high speed wifi ~300mbps as 802.11n allows. The following hardware was used during this tests:
Airport Express Model: A1264 Firmware: 7.4.2
1) Macbook Pro AirPort Extreme (0x14E4, 0x88)|Broadcom BCM43xx 1.0 (5.10.91.26)
and an
2) 24" iMac - AirPort Extreme (0x14E4, 0x8E)|Broadcom BCM43xx 1.0 (5.10.91.26)
Goal: Achieve to establish a high speed wireless-n infrastructure network.
Comparing to: Ad Hoc Network Wireless-N iMac to Macbook Pro
Basic Ad Hoc Network Setup:
Macbook Pro:
PHY Mode: 802.11n
Channel: 11 (2.4Ghz)
Security: none
RSSI: -54
Transmit Rate: 130
MCS Index: 15
iMac 9.1:
Channel: 11 (2.4Ghz)
Security: none
RSSI: -48
Transmit Rate: 1117
MCS Index: 14
Testing: copy 1GB file via Finder Desktop to Desktop
Reault: achieved an avarage transfer-rate: 9.7MB/s
Infrastructure Tests:
1st Setup: identical setup with airport express
Configuration: Airport Express
Radio Mode: 802.11n only (2.4 Ghz)
Channel: 11
Security: none
Macbook Pro:
PHY Mode: 802.11n
Channel: 11 (2.4Ghz)
Security: none
RSSI: -36
Transmit Rate: 130
MCS Index: 15
iMac 9.1:
Channel: 11 (2.4Ghz)
Security: none
RSSI: -38
Transmit Rate: 130
MCS Index: 15
Testing: copy 1GB file via Finder Desktop to Desktop
Reault: achieved an avarage transfer-rate: 3.2MB/s
2nd Setup: airport express
Configuration: Airport Express
Radio Mode: 802.11n only (2.4 Ghz)
Channel: 11
Security: WPA2
Macbook Pro:
PHY Mode: 802.11n
Channel: 11 (2.4Ghz)
Security: WPA2 Personal
RSSI: -34
Transmit Rate: 130
MCS Index: 15
iMac 9.1:
Channel: 11 (2.4Ghz)
Security: WPA2 Personal
RSSI: -37
Transmit Rate: 145
MCS Index: 15
Testing: copy 1GB file via Finder Desktop to Desktop
Reault: achieved an avarage transfer-rate: 3.0MB/s
3rd Setup: airport express
Configuration: Airport Express
Radio Mode: 802.11n (802.11b/g compatible)
Channel: 11
Security: WPA2
Macbook Pro:
PHY Mode: 802.11n
Channel: 11 (2.4Ghz)
Security: WPA2 Personal
RSSI: -33
Transmit Rate: 130
MCS Index: 15
iMac 9.1:
Channel: 11 (2.4Ghz)
Security: WPA2 Personal
RSSI: -39
Transmit Rate: 145
MCS Index: 15
Testing: copy 1GB file via Finder Desktop to Desktop
Reault: achieved an avarage transfer-rate: 2.9MB/s
4th Setup: airport express
Configuration: Airport Express
Radio Mode: 802.11n (802.11a compatible)
Channel: Automatic
Security: WPA2
Macbook Pro:
PHY Mode: 802.11n
Channel: 36 (5Ghz)
Security: WPA2 Personal
RSSI: -48
Transmit Rate: 270
MCS Index: 15
iMac 9.1:
Channel: 36 (5Ghz)
Security: WPA2 Personal
RSSI: -46
Transmit Rate: 300
MCS Index: 15
Testing: copy 1GB file via Finder Desktop to Desktop
Reault: achieved an avarage transfer-rate: 5.5MB/s
Enabling/ disabling wide channels doesnt change the avarage transfer rate significantly.
These are just a few examples of all tests I have done, I have tried every possible configuration and took screen shots of almost 80% of the test (if someone is interested in reviewing this).
I couldnt find a single configuration in infrastructure mode that is as fast as the ad-hoc connection, so I assume either apple's setup for ad hoc and using channels is different to infrastructure or the airport express simply is unable to perform the same way as the wifi cards being used inside my Macs (which is my conclusion unless someone proves me wrong).
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Keep in mind, my findings show a 100% faster network in Ad hoc mode on a 2.4 Ghz connection
This is quite unsatisfying as I have bought the airport express on Feb 9th 2010 and it was the latest available model according to local genius bar.
So to quote apple: "The AirPort Express Base Station is based on an IEEE 802.11n draft specification and is compatible with IEEE 802.11a, IEEE 802.11b, and IEEE 802.11g." yes it might be compatible but doesnt allow you to fully operate at those specifications or has anyone been able to achieve this somehow?

why didnt I find this any earlier ...
http://www.applesource.com.au/mac-accessories/soa/Apple-AirPort-Express-Base-Sta tion-802-11n-/0,2000451112,339287629,00.htm

IEEE 802.11k roaming with client and cisco router

I found information that Cisco supports IEEE802.11k WLAN standard with their routers.
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/technotes/5700/software/release/ios_xe_33/11rkw_DeploymentGuide/b_802point11rkw_deployment_guide_cisco_ios_xe_release33/b_802point11rkw_deployment_guide_cisco_ios_xe_release33_chapter_010.html
If read this article I think for assisted roaming I only need neigbor reports but IEEE 802.11k standard also defines several reports like channel load report etc.
Do I need these other reports also for roaming decisions if my device is a client?

The reason why you can't remote desktop is because you have configured the following static PAT statement that unfortunately take precedence over your NAT exemption:
ip nat inside source static tcp 10.10.1.2 3389 192.198.46.14 3389 extendable
Do you require RDP with the public IP? if you don't and only require RDP via VPN, then please take the static PAT statement out, and RDP via VPN will work.

Macintosh OSX, 802.1x and PEAP

I'm preparing to implement 802.1x port authentication for both wired and wireless connections. The authentication server is Windows 2003 IAS. In the test environment, Windows XP clients can connect fine, but I'm not sure how to configure this for Mac OSX workstations (10.4.6). Has anyone successfully done this? If so could you please explain the proceedure, or direct me to documentation that explains the process?

Assuming you're using NAC fraework then it's bad news, 802.1x won't work on a Mac. If you use 802.1x and L2IP in combination then wired Macs will work but wireless Macs will not. The reason is that the Cisco CTA for the Mac communicates with using EAP over UDP and this transport is not available when using 802.1x alone or over a wireless link with 802.1x or L2IP. The only way of catering for all client types at once (Windows wired and wireless, Mac wired and wireless) is L3IP.
The NAC Appliance "will" support wireless Macs in a future release but (I believe) doesn't at the moment.

IEEE 802.1x Authentication with RADIUS failed

Hello guys,
I've a little strange Situation.
If user start his Computer (Windows 7 enterprise) and computer is connected via LAN it works fine.
If user start his Computer (Windows 7 enterprise) and computer is connected via WLAN it works also fine.
But if user start his Computer (Windows 7 enterprise) that is connected via LAN it is not more possible to connect to WLAN (parallel). I've implemented an IEEE 802.1 RADIUS authenticiation.
It does not work with this special user account. I've tested it already successful with couple other accounts.
Does someone has experience with such Situation?
Regards
Rodik

It does not work with this special user account. I've tested it already successful with couple other accounts.
Hi,
Did you mean that this problem just occures to the single User Account but others works fine at same computer, isn't it?
When it connect Wlan failed, is there any error message? Have you tried to reinstall the WLan device driver for test?
it would be better to provide more details about the Wlan connect failed.
Roger Lu
TechNet Community Support

IEEE 802.1x port-based authetication

I want to configure IEEE 802.1x port-based authentication on cisco switches, preferable 2960 series. Which models support this feature?. I have try with some older switches but it doesn't works properly on everyone.
I have upgraded them whitout better results, there is namely an issue with TLS handshaking on some switches which produces authentication to fail.

Hi Claudia,
do you mean that the EAP-TLS authentication fails only on some 2960 switches and it works on other 2960s?
What is the IOS version you're using there?
What is the RADIUS server in use?
What is the exact error message you see on the RADIUS side?
Usually, the reason for the EAP-TLS handshake failure is to be troubleshoot on the supplicant and AAA server, however, there may be something on the switch depending on the certificate size and MTU settings on the switch(es).
What is the server cert size and the MTU configured on the switches?
With the info you provided it's difficult to say what's the reason of this failure.
I would suggest to start looking into the above mentioned topics, else you would need to proceed with deeper debugging and sniffer traces, which may be better/easier to handle through a TAC case.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Federico
If this answers your question please mark the question as "answered" and rate it, so other users can easily find it.

802.1x and Voice VLAN

I had read articles on cco, and I believed for the same switch port we can have 802.1x configure and the voice vlan configure. It mean the IP phone is connect to the switch port with 802.1x configured, but the phone will not autheticate, only the workstation connect to phone data port will get authenticate.
I had configured 802.1x and test with notebook logon and able to access the network. Now I would like to test the notebook attached to IP phone data port, and the phone connect to switch port configure with 802.1x. But I failed to add voice vlan commmand. Why ?
interface GigabitEthernet9/48
description temporary port
switchport
switchport access vlan 12
switchport mode access
no ip address
dot1x port-control auto
spanning-tree portfast
CIG01-ENT-SW1(config-if)#switchport voice vlan 14
Command rejected: Gi9/48 is Dot1x enabled port.

Using IEEE 802.1x Authentication with Voice VLAN Ports
A voice VLAN port is a special access port associated with two VLAN identifiers:
?VVID to carry voice traffic to and from the IP phone. The VVID is used to configure the IP phone connected to the port.
?PVID to carry the data traffic to and from the workstation connected to the switch through the IP phone. The PVID is the native VLAN of the port.
In single-host mode, only the IP phone is allowed on the voice VLAN. In multiple-hosts mode, additional clients can send traffic on the voice VLAN after a supplicant is authenticated on the PVID. When multiple-hosts mode is enabled, the supplicant authentication affects both the PVID and the VVID.
A voice VLAN port becomes active when there is a link, and the device MAC address appears after the first CDP message from the IP phone. Cisco IP phones do not relay CDP messages from other devices. As a result, if several Cisco IP phones are connected in series, the switch recognizes only the one directly connected to it. When IEEE 802.1x authentication is enabled on a voice VLAN port, the switch drops packets from unrecognized Cisco IP phones more than one hop away.
When IEEE 802.1x authentication is enabled on a port, you cannot configure a port VLAN that is equal to a voice VLAN.
Waht kind of switch do you have? In 3550 I can configure the port for both vvid and pvid:
interface FastEthernet0/1
switchport access vlan 3
switchport mode access
switchport voice vlan 2
no ip address
dot1x port-control auto
spanning-tree portfast
end
Nevertheless, as the statement above indicates, the port will need to be configured for multi-host in order the PC behind the phone get autehntication:
under the interface configure "dot1x host-mode multi-host"
Nevermind, I just realized that you might have a 5600 running native, checking the configuration guide and realese notes it does not looks like dot1x and vvlan can play together in that platform.

National Instruments PXI with IEEE 802.15.4 standard (ZigBee)

Bonjour,
En fait, je travaille sur un projet qui a pour but d’implémenter un émetteur/récepteur Zigbee en bande de base reconfigurable sur la plateforme d'évaluation XUPV5-LX110T qui embarque un Virtex 5. Je suis actuellement dans la phase de test réel.
Premièrement, Je veux envoyer mes données venant d’un pc vers un FPGA et de les recevoir (pour traiter mes signaux sur Matlab). Est-ce-que cette tâche est faisable ou non ? Y a-t-il une solution pour ça en utilisant un média de communication (la liaison série par exemple)
Deuxièmement, Y a-t-il un équipement de mesure et de test de National Instruments à l’aide des PXI qui supporte le protocole sans fil Zigbee ou autrement la norme IEEE 802.15.4 (à savoir RF Vector Signal Generator et Vector Signal Analyzer) de la partie frontale analogique que ce soit en émission ou en réception?
Et merci d’avance pour tout le monde.
Hello,
In fact, I'm working on a project which aims to implement a reconfigurable Zigbee tranceiver on XUPV5-LX110T Evaluation platform which integrates a Virtex 5 FPGA. I am currently in the phase of real test.
First, I want to send my data from a PC to FPGA and receive it (to treat my signals on Matlab). Is this possible or not? If yes, Is there a solution for it using a medium of communication (e.g. serial link)
Second, is there a measuring equipment and testing National Instruments using PXI which supports the Zigbee wireless protocol or otherwise IEEE 802.15.4 standard (i.e. RF Vector Signal Generator and Vector Signal Analyzer) of the analog front-end either in transmission or reception?
And thanks a lot in advance for everyone.

Hello,
I am not sure what data you will be collecting, or how you intend on using the board. Perhaps you can explain your application a little bit more?
Is the FPGA code already developed for your application with the XUPV5-LX110T board? As long as the developed FPGA code is able to communicate with your PC via whatever protocol you choose, then you can use that as a channel to send data back and forth. Since the board is capable of many different I/O connections, you can pretty much sending/receive data over which ever connection you prefer, Ethernet, RS-232, etc.
Just to clear up any confusion, if you do not already have FPGA code for the board, this is not something you would be able to develop with LabVIEW FPGA programming. The XUPV5-LX110T board is not supported for programming its FPGA using LabVIEW FPGA. You can however, program in labVIEW to communicate data back and forth with the I/O you have chosen to connect with to your PC, such as Ethernet or RS-232, as mentioned above.
As far as measuring equipment NI offers for testing with the Zibee (IEEE 802.15.4) wireless protocol in the PXI platform, if your application requires you to both transmit to, and received from the board, and then you would need either both a Vector Signal Generator and Vector Signal Analyzer, or a Vector Signal Transceiver. See the list below for some examples of what we have to offer.
VSAs: NI PXI-5661, NI PXIe-5663E
VSGs: NI PXI-5671, NI PXIe-5672/5673E
VSTs: NI PXIe-5644R/5645R/5646R
From my knowledge of ZigBee, you would be capable of communicating with the board using any of these devices.
Matthew R.
Applications Engineer
National Instruments

Network IEEE 802.1X problems

I bought a new macbook at last week and when I tried to conect on my university wireless lan with WEP IEEE 802.1X using TTLS.
In fact the conection works for 5 seconds... After it, my macbook starts an autentication process and cannot authenticate with the LAN. This problems happens by Wireless and by cable. In fact many other students are having the same problem but only with Macbook core2duo models. The old coreduo Macbooks works fine. So, it seems to me that this new model has a problem. I hope Apple find a way to solve it!!
macbook core2duo black Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Hi materdei,
I am having the same problem. The thing is though sometimes I stay connected without any problems for hours, but when then it disconnects if you don't "cancel" the authentication process, it just freezes there.
By the way I don't think it's just new Macbooks, it is all of them because I have an old Macbook, it doesn't work fine either, and I know other people with old Macbooks having the same problem. But for example I have never seen older Apple computers experiencing this.
Just thought it could be the uni's problem, but then why just Macbooks are affected?
ps: I see that you're from Portugal, and are you also studying there? Because I am having this problem in a uni in Portugal and I am not really sure but i think all the uni's are using the same system over there.

IEEE 802.1ad / 0x88a8

I have moved to another vendor at my edge, and I have continued to use 0x8100 as my ethertype which seems to play nice except for when a customer has a native vlan1 setup.
Vlan1 will get tagged into my SVLAN 301, but Cisco sees it as an incorrect BPDU, and shuts down the port. I also see customer CDP neighbor information, and other stuff when the customer doesnt prune his network down, or uses vlan1 on transparent lan services.
My new vendor told me to use the IEEE 802.1ad standard for the outter tag, (ethertype 0x88a8), but Cisco doesnt support it. Does anyone know why Cisco is not following the IEEE 802.1ad standard for provider bridges (Q-Q) tagging on the ME3400 series? I know they developed their own proprietary GBPT protocol for handling of L2 protocols but that doesnt help me now.
Just some quick searching, shows that the 7600 is supported with 12.2SR. ME3400's are not, its a 'future' release, but I dont know how long ago that document was written.
*May 10 18:30:30 MST: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface GigabitEthernet1/0/1, changed state to up
*May 10 18:30:31 MST: %SPANTREE-2-RECV_PVID_ERR: Received BPDU with inconsistent peer vlan id 1 on GigabitEthernet1/0/1 VLAN301.
*May 10 18:30:31 MST: %SPANTREE-2-BLOCK_PVID_LOCAL: Blocking GigabitEthernet1/0/1 on VLAN0301. Inconsistent local vlan.
show spanning-tree vlan 301
VLAN0301
Spanning tree enabled protocol rstp
Root ID Priority 4397
Address 0017.5aaf.f200
This bridge is the root
Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 10 sec Forward Delay 7 sec
Bridge ID Priority 4397 (priority 4096 sys-id-ext 301)
Address 0017.5aaf.f200
Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 10 sec Forward Delay 7 sec
Aging Time 300
Interface Role Sts Cost Prio.Nbr Type
Gi1/0/1 Desg BKN*4 128.1 P2p *PVID_Inc
Gi1/0/2 Desg BKN*4 128.2 P2p *PVID_Inc

Currently, the default ether type is 0x8100 on a Cisco 7600 for the Q-in-Q outer tag. However, a few non-Cisco vendors use 0x9100 or 0x9200 ether type for the Q-in-Q outer tag. For Cisco 7600 router to operate seamlessly with other vendors it is required to provide a mechanism to change the default ethertype.
Moreover, there is a need to support ethertype 0x88A8 to support provider bridge defined by IEEE 802.1ad. Custom ethertype feature is proposed as a solution for this problem that enable change of ethertype as per requirements. Under the custom ethertype model, ethertype 0x9100, 0x9200 and 0x88A8 can be configured using "dot1q tunneling" CLI under a physical port.
Benefits
The explanation for the error message:
%SPANTREE-2-RECV_BAD_TLV: Received SSTP BPDU with bad TLV on [chars]
[chars].
Explanation The specified interface has received a Shared Spanning-Tree Protocol (SSTP) bridge protocol data unit (BPDU) that was missing the VLAN ID tag. The BPDU has been discarded.
Recommended Action If this message recurs, copy the error message exactly as it appears on the console or in the system log, call your Cisco technical support representative, and provide the representative with the gathered information.

Catalyst 2960 XR support standar IEEE 802.3i

Hi
The Catalyst 2960 XR support standar IEEE 802.3i?.
becouse the datasheet not is present.
Best regards.

Data Sheet doesnt cover this standard:
tandards
● IEEE 802.1D Spanning Tree Protocol
● IEEE 802.1p CoS Prioritization
● IEEE 802.1Q VLAN
● IEEE 802.1s
● IEEE 802.1w
● IEEE 802.1X
● IEEE 802.1ab (LLDP)
● IEEE 802.3ad
● IEEE 802.3af
● IEEE 802.3ah (100BASE-X single/multimode fiber only)
● IEEE 802.3x full duplex on 10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, and 1000BASE-T ports
● IEEE 802.3 10BASE-T specification
● IEEE 802.3u 100BASE-TX specification
● IEEE 802.3ab 1000BASE-T specification
● IEEE 802.3z 1000BASE-X specification
Could you please open a TAC case so that we check with BU on the same?

National Instruments PXI avec IEEE 802.15.4 standard

Bonjour,
En fait, je travaille sur un projet qui a pour but d’implémenter un émetteur/récepteur Zigbee en bande de base reconfigurable sur la plateforme d'évaluation XUPV5-LX110T qui embarque un Virtex 5. Je suis actuellement dans la phase de test réel.
Premièrement, Je veux envoyer mes données venant d’un pc vers un FPGA et de les recevoir (pour traiter mes signaux sur Matlab). Est-ce-que cette tâche est faisable ou non ? Y a-t-il une solution pour ça en utilisant un média de communication (la liaison série par exemple)
Deuxièmement, Y a-t-il un équipement de mesure et de test de National Instruments à l’aide des PXI qui supporte le protocole sans fil Zigbee ou autrement la norme IEEE 802.15.4 (à savoir RF Vector Signal Generator et Vector Signal Analyzer) de la partie frontale analogique que ce soit en émission ou en réception?
Et merci d’avance pour tout le monde.

Bonjour,
Si vous utilisez LabVIEW ou Lab/WindowsCVI ou n'importe quel logiciel National Instruments et nos cartes FPGA c'est tout à fait possible de le faire.
En ce qui concerne la norme IEEE 802-15.4 vous pouvez communiquer avec un PXI 5660 par exemple.
Accelerating ZigBee and 802.15.4 Module Testing with LabVIEW and an NI RF Vector Signal Analyzer /
http://sine.ni.com/cs/app/doc/p/id/cs-744
Brice S.
National Instruments France

Upgrading Wireless Card in dv7-6197CA to Intel 7260HMW IEEE 802.11AC

I'm looking into upgrading my wireless card in my dv7-6197CA to something that will perform a bit better than my current wireless card. I was looking into upgrading to a card which supports the WiFi ac standard, and saw the Intel 7260HMW IEEE 802.11AC. During my research I've heard something about only certain wireless cards being compatiable with HP laptops due to a whitelist. My question is, will the Intel 7260HMW IEEE 802.11AC be compatiable with my model of laptop? Thanks in advance!

Only wifi cards offered by HP on your model are sure to work and it has to be a wifi card bearing an HP Spares Part number or yes, the whiltelist will jump up and bite you. I am not aware of HP's offering any 802.11ac wifi cards yet.

NAC - L2 IEEE 802.1x and NAC - L2 IP differences.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for