Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:05:36 +0100 From: Bernhard Schmidt <bschmidt@techwires.net> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org, PseudoCylon <moonlightakkiy@yahoo.ca>, freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/176201: [net80211] [patch] 11n station includes unrelated ht params into ASSOC_REQ packet Message-ID: <201302222005.36490.bschmidt@techwires.net> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmonjWJoJ4CSRvtN7z3LYg=nEngcDnL49TZK96PngTkwRhg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201302180246.r1I2kocv064092@freefall.freebsd.org> <CAJ-VmonXhBfxKMAD4EqhksqOKwVffQeE=JJ%2BR0qdifwAowcBkA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonjWJoJ4CSRvtN7z3LYg=nEngcDnL49TZK96PngTkwRhg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:52:47 PM Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hm, it's possible in my sleep deprived state that I'm on the right but > wrong track here. > > The OP problem is that we're not advertising the right capabilities > when we associate, right? Correct. > Why aren't we just advertising the VAP ampdumax and ampdudensity no > matter what the operating mode? Why are we capping those parameters to > the learnt-from-AP parameters? Because the AP would otherwise deny the association request. That's at least how I read the commit (r173865). -- Bernhard
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201302222005.36490.bschmidt>