On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Jouni Malinen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 16:16 -0700, Pavel Roskin wrote: >> I confirm that scan_freq is accepted by the current wpa_supplicant but >> has no reliable effect. Both ath5k and ath9k connected to an AP on the >> channel 6 when "scan_freq=2412" was in the configuration file. > > scan_freq is not supposed to limit the association to specific channels; > it is only to limit scan requests made by wpa_supplicant. You may still > find BSSes on other channels either due to scan requests made by other > programs or by receiving Beacon/Probe Response frames on another > channel. > > If there is interest for limiting the association to specific channels, > it should be trivial addition to wpa_supplicant (with nl80211).
Wireless vendors have started to realize the problem here and have begun implementing features to help. An example from the latest Cisco Controller configuration guide for 802.11n AP's: ...Configuring Band Selection The 2.4-GHz band is often congested. Clients on this band typically experience interference from Bluetooth devices, microwave ovens, and cordless phones as well as co-channel interference from other access points because of the 802.11b/g limit of three non-overlapping channels. To combat these sources of interference and improve overall network performance, controller software release 6.0 enables you to configure band selection on the controller. This feature enables client radios that are capable of dual-band (2.4- and 5-GHz) operation to move to a less congested 5-GHz access point... > I don't > know whether I would fully agree on this being a useful thing for > general use, but I can understand it at least as a testing tool Yes, how can one accurately simulate an end user problem when their client is on a different band than yours and you have no control over which band your client lands on. >(which > people may then misuse for other things ;-). Years ago Intel (and I think some Broadcom) made that same decision with many of their Windows drivers, and now recently Microsoft with Vista and Windows 7 thought it was important enough to at least have the option. Agreed ...it is not on the first page of the configuration, but it is an option for those of us looking hard enough to find it. ...Especially if it is "trivial" ...please consider adding. For me, it's the only reason I occasionally have to boot Windows. Thanks, Curtis _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
