From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 28 19:29:42 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBF4106566B for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:29:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bschmidt@mx.techwires.net) Received: from mx.techwires.net (mx.techwires.net [IPv6:2001:4d88:100f:1::3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF33D8FC25 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:29:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mx.techwires.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 339F91AF59; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:29:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:29:40 +0100 From: Bernhard Schmidt To: Jim Pingle Message-ID: <20100228192940.GA48806@mx.techwires.net> References: <5fbf03c21002270427s74d0f067gb76cfe10c2794121@mail.gmail.com> <20100227124308.GA28213@mx.techwires.net> <5fbf03c21002270501l2e388ec9tbdad684d38609861@mail.gmail.com> <4B89E174.1060802@pingle.org> <1B1F52CC-FF36-4432-9345-73BB673EE7E8@gmail.com> <4B8AAA0B.4010402@pingle.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B8AAA0B.4010402@pingle.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD-8.0 802.11n support with ath/mwl X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:29:42 -0000 On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:38:19PM -0500, Jim Pingle wrote: > On 2/28/2010 7:54 AM, Rui Paulo wrote: > > On 28 Feb 2010, at 03:22, Jim Pingle wrote: > >> > >> Are you aware if similar work ongoing for the mwl(4) based 802.11n > >> cards? I picked up a couple cheap this past week and have them working > >> with hostapd but, as with the OP in the thread, only with G rates. > >> > >> The ifconfig[1] output suggests that it is using 40MHz wide ht channels > >> but devices only associate at 54Mbps[2]. > >> > >> Jim > >> > >> [1] ifconfig mwl0_wlan1 > >> mwl0_wlan1: flags=8843 metric 0 > >> mtu 1500 > >> ether 00:01:36:17:96:0e > >> inet6 fe80::201:36ff:fe17:960e%mwl0_wlan1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x9 > >> inet 192.168.15.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.15.255 > >> nd6 options=3 > >> media: IEEE 802.11 Wireless Ethernet autoselect mode 11na > >> status: running > >> ssid WatchTower channel 100 (5500 MHz 11a ht/40+) bssid 00:01:36:17:96:0e > >> regdomain DEBUG indoor authmode WPA2/802.11i privacy MIXED deftxkey 3 > >> AES-CCM 2:128-bit AES-CCM 3:128-bit txpower 14 scanvalid 60 > >> ampdulimit 64k ampdudensity 4 shortgi smps burst dtimperiod 1 > >> > >> > >> [2] ifconfig mwl0_wlan1 list sta (w/addr removed) > >> AID CHAN RATE RSSI IDLE TXSEQ RXSEQ CAPS FLAG > >> 1 120 54M 33.0 0 1537 25952 EP A RSN (rssi 68:20:20 nf > >> 0:0:0) > > > > mwl supports HT rates, but it looks like your AP is not sending HT rates to you. > > Thanks for the quick clarification, that's very encouraging to find out! > > In this case, the mwl card is the AP. The client line is from an > associated Windows 7 laptop with an Intel 5100abgn card which does show > the AP as 802.11n in the AP list. I'm connected and sending this message > through it right now, actually. > > Are there some other bits that need set in order to have clients > associate with HT rates? Or some other prerequisite conditions such as > number of attached antennae? I do only have one antenna attached as I > didn't have a second pigtail for this test unit's case. The card > actually has three connectors. > > I didn't see hints in the mwl(4), wlan(4), hostapd(8), hostapd.conf(5), > or ifconfig(8) man pages about troubleshooting rates. I see plenty of > talk in ifconfig(8) about use and control of HT rates, but given what > I'm seeing in ifconfig, it should be set to use them. I've tried several > combinations of channels and standards (e.g. 11ng, 11na) but always end > up with a 54Mbps link. > > I'd appreciate any more pointers that you (or anyone else reading) may > have. I'd like to write up something on the topic once I get it fully > operational. Did you measure the actual bandwidth you get? Changes are high that you are actually using HT rates, the rate information is just no accurate. -- Bernhard