Re: One more question about device activation (trunk)

Am Sa 29 Sep 2007 07:10:59 CEST schrieb Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>:

On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 08:54 +0200, Helmut Schaa wrote:

just stumbled across an issue while playing around with wireless connections
in KNM.

Why does NM require specific_object to be set when connecting to a wireless
network? Shouldn't the wireless and security settings suffice? What if I want
to connect to a hidden network where no AP is available yet?

The reason for specific_object is this...  A connection doesn't
necessarily _have_ to correspond to a specific AP.  Therefore, the
choice is left up to the user client which specific AP to apply the
connection to (as long as that AP is still compatible with the
connection).  For example, say you have two APs with the same SSID, but
one is bg and one is b-only.  Maybe the applet wants to connection to
the bg one specifically to get higher speed, who knows.

But the setting "802-11-wireless" has a member "bssid". If the frontend wants to connect to a specific AP it should be sufficient to pass the AP's BSSID, not?

That said, you've got a point with hidden networks.  We'll probably have
to allow a null specific_object for wireless and regard specific_object
as a hint only.

Right :)

In my opinion NM should (if no AP is specified) try to find one in its AP-list
which fits best the connection's settings and use this one (for hidden
networks of course no AP should be used). I think there was some code in NM
which had this behaviour before?

Yes, this is how it should work.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]