Subject: Re: Back to an old ath association issue
To: Konstantin KABASSANOV <Konstantin.Kabassanov@lip6.fr>
From: Chavdar Ivanov <ci4ic4@gmail.com>
List: tech-net
Date: 05/01/2006 23:09:26
On 01/05/06, Konstantin KABASSANOV <Konstantin.Kabassanov@lip6.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some mounts ago, there was a discussion about unexpected disassociations =
of
> ath clients from access points. After that, a number of important changes
> occurred in the source code, but the problem still remains unchanged.
>
> May  1 16:49:33 pc-04 /netbsd: ath1: link state changed to DOWN
> May  1 16:49:40 pc-04 /netbsd: ath1: link state changed to UP

Same happens to me with a ral client when using WPA with
wpa_supplicant; not as often as it used to, but still enough as to be
annoying.
>
> What are the debug options to enable and the sysctl to set in order to tr=
y
> to discover the origin of the problem?
>
> BTW, where the interface disassociates, I suppose, it starts a channel sc=
an
> trying to re-associate. But I wonder if the scans start from the current
> channel, the next one or from the first channel in the range... Anyway, t=
he
> re-association process takes several seconds...

It could take up to several minutes for me.

No problem whatsoever without encryption.

>
> Thanks.

You may have seen some times earlier Steve Belovin's utilities:

http://www.machshav.com/~smb/ath-tools/

sysctl -w net.link.ieee80211.debug=3D1

>
> _________________________________
>
> Konstantin K. KABASSANOV
>
> LIP6/CNRS
> 8, rue du Capitaine Scott
> 75015 Paris, France
>
> Phone: +33 (0) 1 44 27 71 26
> Fax:   +33 (0) 1 44 27 74 95
>
> E-mail: konstantin@kabassanov.com
> Web: http://www.kabassanov.com
> _________________________________
>
> IMPORTANT! If you have tried to reply to this mail and you received a
> stupid message, announcing that the mail had been rejected as spam,
> please, resend your reply to the address above.
>
> The certificate used to sign this e-mail can be verified at:
> http://igc.services.cnrs.fr/CNRS-Standard/recherche.html
>
> Mediocrity is the worst kind of failure...
>
>
>
>
>