On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 13:30 -0400, Derek Atkins wrote: > Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [snip] > > So here's a thought (started out as two different options, but this one > > is clearly better): > > > > Do finer-grained coalescing of access points. Still do limited > > BSSID->ESSID fill-in, but after that, start matching AP capabilities > > too. There's no way to distinguish between 40/64/104/128-bit WEP, but > > we can stuff the APs into categories like unencrypted, WEP, WPA1, WPA2. > > If the user has pre-configured settings for them, we can use those to > > further differentiate them. > > > > We must be careful to not do too-aggressive differentiation, but it's > > pretty clear that an AP that's unencrypted shouldn't be coalesced with > > an AP that's encrypted, even if they share the same SSID. The point is > > that we accommodate users who's networks suck, but don't make pointless > > distinctions for people who never are, or never will be, in that > > situation. > > > > Given Jens' situation, with a few others thrown in: > > > > a. SSID: foo, BSSID: xx:0a, hidden, WEP > > b. SSID: bar, BSSID: xx:0a, broadcast, unencrypted > > c. SSID: linksys, BSSID: xx:bf, broadcast, WPA1 > > d. SSID: linksys, BSSID: xx:ac, broadcast, WPA1 > > e. SSID: linksys, BSSID: xx:9f, broadcast, Ad-Hoc, WEP > > f. SSID: stupid, BSSID: xx:12, broadcast, WPA1 > > g. SSID: stupid, BSSID: xx:66, broadcast, WEP > > I would ask that you also add "802.11 mode" to this mix.. In > particular separating 802.11(a) from 802.11(b/g) would be a GOOD > THING.
Ah yes, I haven't forgotten you and your network :) Quite correct. Dan _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
