On 10/3/14, 8:45 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
Jay,
Thanks; I think I was stretching this a bit far beyond just the Marriott example. Killing hotspots of completely discrete networks "because $$$" is heinous. I had extended this to e.g.:
1. Hotel charges for either wired or wireless access per device and has network policies to that effect.
OK.
2. Guest pays for a single device and hooks up an AP or AP/NAT combo to the wired port.
Guest has only a single device connected to hotel's network, which he is paying for. OK.
3. User piggybacks multiple devices on that device's WLAN.
His network, his rules. Hotel has no right to interfere. He only has one device connected to them. Same scenario as that of a residential ISP where a user pays for one dynamic IP address, installs a NAT box and connects several devices to it. If hotel has an AUP that specifically prohibits this, then they are within their rights to disconnect the user from their network, but not to interfere with his network. If they do so he now has his own little private WLAN going nowhere but it works just fine. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV