On Tue, February 5, 2013 14:10, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2013/02/05 05:18, Brad Smith wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:26:47AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:04:30 -0500
From: Brad Smith b...@comstyle.com
To a certain extent this seems to make rsu(3) work a
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 01:23:00PM +0300, Kirill Bychkov wrote:
On Tue, February 5, 2013 14:10, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2013/02/05 05:18, Brad Smith wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:26:47AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:04:30 -0500
From: Brad Smith
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:36:41AM -0500, Brad Smith wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:26:47AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:04:30 -0500
From: Brad Smith b...@comstyle.com
To a certain extent this seems to make rsu(3) work a little better, but
now I am
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 09:26:58 -0500
From: Brad Smith b...@comstyle.com
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:36:41AM -0500, Brad Smith wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:26:47AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:04:30 -0500
From: Brad Smith b...@comstyle.com
To a
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 03:44:12PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 09:26:58 -0500
From: Brad Smith b...@comstyle.com
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:36:41AM -0500, Brad Smith wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:26:47AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:26:47AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:04:30 -0500
From: Brad Smith b...@comstyle.com
To a certain extent this seems to make rsu(3) work a little better, but
now I am seeing ``rsu0: could not send join command'' messages which never
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:26:47AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:04:30 -0500
From: Brad Smith b...@comstyle.com
To a certain extent this seems to make rsu(3) work a little better, but
now I am seeing ``rsu0: could not send join command'' messages which never
On 2013/02/05 05:18, Brad Smith wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:26:47AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:04:30 -0500
From: Brad Smith b...@comstyle.com
To a certain extent this seems to make rsu(3) work a little better, but
now I am seeing ``rsu0: could not
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:10:01 +
From: Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org
On 2013/02/05 05:18, Brad Smith wrote:
With this newer firmware I can do many manual scans in a row and the
over all stability of connections associated with an AP is more stable
too. Also IPv6 seems to
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 05:58:09PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
I believe it is actually an older firmware.
Looking at the debug printf indicating the month/day for the firmware
that seems to be so.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:04:30 -0500
From: Brad Smith b...@comstyle.com
To a certain extent this seems to make rsu(3) work a little better, but
now I am seeing ``rsu0: could not send join command'' messages which never
happened before.
Hmm, I wonder which of the two rsu_fw_cmd() calls in
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 04:44:39PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
When working on the WPA-Enterprise stuff, I actually ran into an issue
with the rsu(4) I was using. It seems there is a problem with
submitting the join BSS command when an RSN information element is
included, which makes the
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 04:44:39PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
When working on the WPA-Enterprise stuff, I actually ran into an issue
with the rsu(4) I was using. It seems there is a problem with
submitting the join BSS command when an RSN information element is
included, which makes the
When working on the WPA-Enterprise stuff, I actually ran into an issue
with the rsu(4) I was using. It seems there is a problem with
submitting the join BSS command when an RSN information element is
included, which makes the command never complete. The crucial bit
seems to be that this changes
14 matches
Mail list logo
