Re: Does anyone understand NetworkManager?
- From: David Abrahams <dave boost-consulting com>
- To: networkmanager-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Does anyone understand NetworkManager?
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:34:25 -0400
Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 09:53 -0300, Thiago Bauermann wrote:
>> 2006/8/15, Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>:
>> > On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 12:56 -0400, Darren Albers wrote:
>> >> Mmm Dan/Robert is NM using ap_scan=1 or 2?
>> > Depends on the distro-specific package, some patch them. But in
>> > general, we'd like to use _2_ everywhere to force wpa_supplicant to do
>> > what _we_ want, rather than trying to be too clever on its own.
>> Mmm.... in supplicant_send_network_config() there's the following excerpt:
>> /* Use "AP_SCAN 2" if:
>> * - The wireless network is non-broadcast or Ad-Hoc
>> * - The wireless driver does not support WPA (stupid drivers...)
>> is_adhoc = (nm_ap_get_mode(ap) == IW_MODE_ADHOC);
>> if (!nm_ap_get_broadcast (ap) || is_adhoc || !supports_wpa)
>> ap_scan = "AP_SCAN 2";
>> For all other cases NM seems to be using ap_scan = 1. Is there a reason why ap_scan = 2 is not used more extensively, then?
>> >> David can you change your wpa_supplicant.conf so that ap_scan=1 rather
>> >> than 2 and see if you have any issues?
>> > Quite correct, that's exactly what we need to know here.
>> Could you elaborate on what this will show, for my enlightenment (and of other interested people, maybe)?
> Sure; madwifi used to have real issues with ap_scan=2, and when we
> moved people to ap_scan=1, that seemed to work for most people.
> madwifi might be fixed now, who knows. But ap_scan is somewhat
> black magic (though it should not be) and drivers likely need to be
> more consistent here. There's no way we're going to expose ap_scan
> through the UI in any way, this needs to be fixed in the drivers or
> in wpa_supplicant, since every driver should work with both modes.
So what do I do about NetworkManager now? Anyone? Do I need to make
up another alarming subject line? ;-)
] [Thread Prev