On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 14:58 -0700, Saikat Guha wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 17:55 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > The driver is telling userspace that it has lost association with the > > access point. Future versions of NM will try harder to reconnect before > > timing out, but I'm not convinced that "pinning" is the best thing to do > > from an interaction perspective. > > From the driver's perspective, it is the right thing to do to report > lost associations. > > However, the driver doesn't know whether it'll reacquire association > soon or not; the user, however, may very well know. I suppose the driver > or NM could employ some heuristics (extended periods of low signal > strength = expect intermittent disassociations), which may be a better > approach than pinning if it does the right thing at the right time.
NM doesn't kill the connection immediately; but if wpa_supplicant or the driver can't re-establish association within about 8 seconds, NM will kill it. > As for NM trying harder to reconnect, what I'd see is that NM would > re-associate, but then it would try to re-acquire the DHCP lease (even > when it is the same network (AP mac even), and the old lease is still > valid). Not necessarily, since NM would know that it just lost association and that the association has only been lost for a certain period of time, it could just re-establish the 802.11 connection. If the DHCP address comes up for lease expiration while association is re-attempted, then DHCP will likely fail the request because it can't contact the server, but that's also catchable I guess. > So perhaps, the fix would be to skip DHCP reacquisition if the old lease > is still valid and you associate to the same network (ssid? ap mac?). Right. But there's still some icky cases if the DHCP lease is about to expire. Dan _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
