• 0 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 13th, 2023

help-circle



  • As a data center engineer of 10+ years, I struggled to understand this at first. In my world, the hardware does a POST before the OS boots and has an inventory of what hardware components are available, so it shouldn’t matter in what order they are discovered, since the interface names should make a correlation between the interface and the pcie slot that NIC exists in.

    Where the water gets muddled is in virtualized servers. The NICs no longer have a correlation to a specific hardware component, and you may need to configure different interfaces in the virtualized OS for different networks. I think in trying to create a methodology that is agnostic to bare metal/virtualized OSs, it was decided that the naming convention should be uniform.

    Probably seems like bloat to the average admin who is unconcerned with whether these NICs are physical or virtual, they just want to configure their server.


  • Yeah you’re obviously beyond reason and we’re speaking across different levels of intellect here. Bringing up NOCs shows you’re entry level, despite how many years of experience you have. Find my phone is a network because the phone which has cellular capabilities reports that to Apple/Google.

    It wasn’t my intention to start a dick measuring contest here but since it’s on the table, im a six figure(deep into six figures) engineer at a fortune 10 company. Your 25+ years of CompTIA A+ experience mean nothing to me. You’re talking to a CCIE.

    No one with any amount of intellect would call something communicating at layer two a “network”, though anything that transfers data between two devices can technically be called a network, “networking” is being able to communicate with OTHER networks.


  • Brother, I’m a 10+ year network engineer… Bluetooth is a low power, low speed, short range(30 feet) technology. The power of Bluetooth signals are over 1000x weaker than what cellphones use to connect to cell towers. There isn’t going to be any sophisticated “networking” happening between airtags. Your original post was almost gibberish, I had to struggle to arrive at the point you’re trying to make. You can call it a network if you want but you’re asking if it could be practical as a standalone, autonomous network and the answer is no. They lack the capability to communicate over any meaningful distance. Not much “networking” capability if it can’t talk to other networks. Others have struggled to talk sense into you so I won’t waste anymore of my time. Though I’d suggest that if you’re going to argue against logic then you should be more open to reason.


  • I think you need to take the thought of “network” completely out of your mind. This protocol is specifically regarding devices such as air tags, which don’t have any network capability themselves but rely on “connecting” to Bluetooth of the manufacturers models. The phones themselves are what gives tracking information back, based on GPS of the phone that was in proximity of the tracker.

    The question that Google/Apple have is, how can we make sure people aren’t unknowingly being tracked by someone putting a physical tracker in say, your car. THAT’S the “protocol” part. A protocol is just an agreement on how a technology is going to be implemented. If your own tracker is following you that’s fine, the MAC address will keep changing. If someone else’s air tag is following you, your phone will know this tracker has been near you for some time, and will tell you.