On lun, 2013-10-14 at 12:20 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 18:39 +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote: > > Hello Dan and thank you for this answer, > > > > On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 09:41 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > > > This problem is most definitely a supplicant issue. The supplicant > > > roams too aggressively, even if the currently associated access point > > > has a very good signal. We've patched that in Fedora, but as you > > > indicate, your kernel wifi driver is also not working correctly when > > > reporting signal strength. > > > > Thank you for these details! > > Do you know if it's possible to configure wpa_supplicant (via NM or not) > > to be less aggressive but without having to patch it? (or to force it to > > not switch between access points?). > > > > I know that we can force wpa_supplication to try to connect to a > > specific access point (by using the mac address) but it's not what I > > want: I don't want to change the settings each time I want to connect to > > a different access point of this network. > > Correct, you want to keep roaming enabled, and that's not possible > (obviously) when locking to a specific access point. There a few things > that will make this better: > > 1) Apply the following patch to your wpa_supplicant, which will make the > problem much better but > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/wpa_supplicant.git/tree/rh837402-less-aggressive-roaming.patch > > 2) Apply the following commit to your NetworkManager packages, which > requests that the supplicant scan for roaming a little less often: > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/commit/?id=dd9cf657ef1f9d5909dad2eb697098715325fecf > > 3) Wait for some upstream changes to the supplicant, which will include > *some* form of the above patch, as well as one I posted upstream to > request the supplicant not to roam as a result of an information-only > scan that NetworkManager periodically does.
Thank you for these patches, I'll have a look asap! (but I'm not sure I'll be able to test it soon) > Obviously all these fixes depend on the kernel driver also reporting the > signal strength correctly... Yes... I'm currently connected to an access point. iwlist gives me a list of 40 access points (each access point has 5 virtual interfaces). All non-connected access points have a quality of 70/70 and a signal level of 10 dBm. On the other hand, all 5 virtual interfaces of the current connected access point have a quality of 58/70 and a signal level of -52 dBm... So I guess your patch for NM should help me! Matt
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
