[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Curtis Larsen]

Hello,

At my work the singleSSID supports 802.11n in the 2.4ghz and 5ghz bands.
Even though 2.4 ghz is slower - my laptop chooses 2.4 every time.  Is there
a way to force connection to 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?  Please let me know.

Thanks,

Curtis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20100320/3959104c/attachment.htm 

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Maximi89]

2010/3/20 Curtis Larsen <curtlarsen@gmail.com>

> Hello,
>
> At my work the singleSSID supports 802.11n in the 2.4ghz and 5ghz bands.
> Even though 2.4 ghz is slower - my laptop chooses 2.4 every time.  Is there
> a way to force connection to 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?  Please let me know.
>
> and your router support 5ghz? i don't know how this work really, but i
guess that should be important

> Thanks,
>
> Curtis
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>
>


-- 
Maximiliano Augusto Casta??n Araneda
Santiago, Chile
Linux user # 394821

Skype: maximi89
MSN: maximi89 at gmail.com
XMPP (Ex Jabber): maximi89 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20100321/b996adab/attachment.htm 

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Jouni Malinen]

On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 14:19 -0700, Curtis Larsen wrote:
> At my work the singleSSID supports 802.11n in the 2.4ghz and 5ghz
> bands.  Even though 2.4 ghz is slower - my laptop chooses 2.4 every
> time.  Is there a way to force connection to 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?  

I don't think there is currently any configuration option for doing that
in the driver or an easy mechanism for doing that. If you are running
wpa_supplicant manually, you could configure a network block with only
some of the channels marked for scanning (scan_freq parameter). That may
end up doing this kind of selection in practice.

However, I do not think that forcing 5 GHz connection is really that
useful in most cases; giving an option to prefer 5 GHz band may,
however, be useful (or some other additional mechanism for preferring
some APs over others). I would assume you would still like to connect
even if some location can only see the 2.4 GHz BSS.

I would prefer to make this type of optimizations automatic whenever
possible, i.e., there really should not be need for the end user to have
to have this type of knowledge. Do you happen to know why the 5 GHz band
is better in your particular case? Is it just because the APs on 2.4 GHz
get more users?

- Jouni

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Curtis Larsen]

Jouni,

Thanks for the reply.  Please see my comments in line below:

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Jouni Malinen <jouni.malinen@atheros.com>wrote:

> On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 14:19 -0700, Curtis Larsen wrote:
> > At my work the singleSSID supports 802.11n in the 2.4ghz and 5ghz
> > bands.  Even though 2.4 ghz is slower - my laptop chooses 2.4 every
> > time.  Is there a way to force connection to 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?
>
> I don't think there is currently any configuration option for doing that
> in the driver or an easy mechanism for doing that. If you are running
> wpa_supplicant manually, you could configure a network block with only
> some of the channels marked for scanning (scan_freq parameter). That may
> end up doing this kind of selection in practice.
>
> Yes, I do run wpa_supplicant.  I would love to see a sample config for this
-even though it sounds like it would not work in all areas across the
campus.  Still, better than what I have right now.


> However, I do not think that forcing 5 GHz connection is really that
> useful in most cases; giving an option to prefer 5 GHz band may,
> however, be useful (or some other additional mechanism for preferring
> some APs over others). I would assume you would still like to connect
> even if some location can only see the 2.4 GHz BSS.
>

Well, the thing is ...I know that in this environment 5ghz will always
provide a better experience, so why even waste resources scanning 2.4,
calculating preferences, etc.?  Since all AP's run 2.4 and 5ghz on the same
SSID, preferring certain AP's would not help.  5ghz is available everywhere
so I never want to even see a 2.4GHz BSS.

>
> I would prefer to make this type of optimizations automatic whenever
> possible, i.e., there really should not be need for the end user to have
> to have this type of knowledge. Do you happen to know why the 5 GHz band
> is better in your particular case? Is it just because the APs on 2.4 GHz
> get more users?
>

Automatic is good unless it is based on flawed assumptions.  For example,
just because the signal strength might be greater on the 2.4ghz band does
not mean that the overall client experience will be better.  In fact, in
general I see slightly lower signal strength on 5ghz but still get double
the throughput there.  Any automatic trigger would have to be based on
signal and channel width and noise/congestion I think.

Having the ability to do this does not mean the user has to have the
knowledge to do so.  There are automated tools like this:
http://www.cloudpath.net/  that allow administrators to configure this for
users on a per SSID basis.

The 5ghz band is better in this case because it uses 40MHz wide channels
while 2.4ghz only uses 20 Mhz wide channels.  Also, there is always more
contention in the 2.4ghz band simply because more cards use it while the
5ghz band is always cleaner because of the additional channels and fewer
clients in high density areas like conferences and auditoriums.

I don't understand why many cards allow this in windows, but we don't see
the ability in Linux yet.  ...Seems very odd to me.


Thanks,

Curtis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20100321/6a00fd81/attachment-0001.htm 

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Jouni Malinen]

On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 09:22 -0700, Curtis Larsen wrote:

> Yes, I do run wpa_supplicant.  I would love to see a sample config for
> this -even though it sounds like it would not work in all areas across
> the campus.  Still, better than what I have right now.

All you need to do is to add scan_freq into the network configuration
block in wpa_supplicant.conf (and not have any other network
configuration blocks enabled that would trigger scan for every channel).
You will need to manually figure out which channels the APs you are
interested in are using and then add them to the list (e.g.,
scan_freq=5180 5200 5220 5240). Please note that this requires
wpa_supplicant 0.7.x and use of nl80211 (-Dnl80211) to work.

> Well, the thing is ...I know that in this environment 5ghz will always
> provide a better experience, so why even waste resources scanning 2.4,
> calculating preferences, etc.?  Since all AP's run 2.4 and 5ghz on the
> same SSID, preferring certain AP's would not help.  5ghz is available
> everywhere so I never want to even see a 2.4GHz BSS. 

While it may indeed be the case that 5 GHz band will provide you better
connectivity in almost all cases, I don't think I would go as far as
saying that it would always be better. Anyway, if you are fine with
doing this unconditionally, scan_freq option may get you close to what
you want to see.

> Automatic is good unless it is based on flawed assumptions.  For
> example, just because the signal strength might be greater on the
> 2.4ghz band does not mean that the overall client experience will be
> better.  In fact, in general I see slightly lower signal strength on
> 5ghz but still get double the throughput there.  Any automatic trigger
> would have to be based on signal and channel width and
> noise/congestion I think.

Sure. wpa_supplicant is trying to take into account other things than
just the signal strength. This includes maximum transmit rate, but that
part does not yet handle IEEE 802.11n rates and channel width. It would
sound reasonable to add that, though, and that would likely increase the
likelihood of picking 5 GHz AP in your particular case.

Similarly, BSS load may be available from the AP (depending on what
capabilities the AP has for advertising things) and wpa_supplicant
should also be extended to allow that to be taken into account in BSS
selection.

- Jouni

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Curtis Larsen]

> All you need to do is to add scan_freq into the network configuration
> block in wpa_supplicant.conf (and not have any other network
> configuration blocks enabled that would trigger scan for every channel).
> You will need to manually figure out which channels the APs you are
> interested in are using and then add them to the list (e.g.,
> scan_freq=5180 5200 5220 5240). Please note that this requires
> wpa_supplicant 0.7.x and use of nl80211 (-Dnl80211) to work.
>

wpa_supplicant that comes with ubuntu 9.04 is 0.6.6-2.  How do I upgrade to
0.7.x?  Also, does the nl80211 driver work only with Atheros chips?  I have
an Intel 5100 with the same problem.  Let me know.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20100322/d9863ffd/attachment.htm 

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Curtis Larsen]

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Curtis Larsen <curtlarsen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> All you need to do is to add scan_freq into the network configuration
>> block in wpa_supplicant.conf (and not have any other network
>> configuration blocks enabled that would trigger scan for every channel).
>> You will need to manually figure out which channels the APs you are
>> interested in are using and then add them to the list (e.g.,
>> scan_freq=5180 5200 5220 5240). Please note that this requires
>> wpa_supplicant 0.7.x and use of nl80211 (-Dnl80211) to work.
>
> wpa_supplicant that comes with ubuntu 9.04 is 0.6.6-2.? How do I upgrade to
> 0.7.x?? Also, does the nl80211 driver work only with Atheros chips?? I have
> an Intel 5100 with the same problem.? Let me know.
>

I now have the new wpa_supplicant-0.7.1 working with the nl80211
driver, but still cannot
force 5ghz.

Here is my wpa_supplicant.conf file:

network={
        ssid="WIFI"
        proto=WPA
        key_mgmt=WPA-PSK
        psk="mysecretpass"
        scan_freq=5825
  }

I have setup the same SSID named "WIFI" at home on both 5ghz and
2.4ghz bands of a dual radio AP.  My laptop will still only connect to
2.4ghz.  It appears to me that the scan_freq=5825 parameter has no
effect.

Here are results from iwlist scanning:

Cell 05 - Address: 00:20:A6:49:A5:CB
                    Channel:11
                    Frequency:2.462 GHz (Channel 11)
                    Quality=64/70  Signal level=-46 dBm
                    Encryption key:on
                    ESSID:"WIFI"
                    Bit Rates:1 Mb/s; 2 Mb/s; 5.5 Mb/s; 11 Mb/s; 6
Mb/s
                              12 Mb/s; 24 Mb/s; 36 Mb/s
                    Bit Rates:9 Mb/s; 18 Mb/s; 48 Mb/s; 54 Mb/s
                    Mode:Master
                    Extra:tsf=0000000083144037
                    Extra: Last beacon: 6650ms ago
                    IE: Unknown: 000457494649
                    IE: Unknown: 010882848B960C183048
                    IE: Unknown: 03010B
                    IE: Unknown: 2A0100
                    IE: Unknown: 32041224606C
                    IE: WPA Version 1
                        Group Cipher : TKIP
                        Pairwise Ciphers (1) : TKIP
                        Authentication Suites (1) : PSK
          Cell 11 - Address: 00:20:A6:49:A5:CA
                    Channel:165
                    Frequency:5.825 GHz
                    Quality=48/70  Signal level=-62 dBm
                    Encryption key:on
                    ESSID:"WIFI"
                    Bit Rates:6 Mb/s; 9 Mb/s; 12 Mb/s; 18 Mb/s; 24 Mb/s
                              36 Mb/s; 48 Mb/s; 54 Mb/s
                    Mode:Master
                    Extra:tsf=000000008aaf2e43
                    Extra: Last beacon: 80ms ago
                    IE: Unknown: 000457494649
                    IE: Unknown: 01088C129824B048606C
                    IE: Unknown: 0301A5
                    IE: WPA Version 1
                        Group Cipher : TKIP
                        Pairwise Ciphers (1) : TKIP
                        Authentication Suites (1) : PSK



Here is the command I used and the output that I get:

clarsen at system76-pc:~/Desktop/wpa_sup/wpa_supplicant-0.7.1/wpa_supplicant$
sudo ./wpa_supplicant -c /etc/wpa_supplicant/WIFI.conf -i wlan0 -D
nl80211 -d
Initializing interface 'wlan0' conf '/etc/wpa_supplicant/WIFI.conf'
driver 'nl80211' ctrl_interface 'N/A' bridge 'N/A'
Configuration file '/etc/wpa_supplicant/WIFI.conf' ->
'/etc/wpa_supplicant/WIFI.conf'
Reading configuration file '/etc/wpa_supplicant/WIFI.conf'
Priority group 0
   id=0 ssid='WIFI'
netlink: Operstate: linkmode=1, operstate=5
Own MAC address: 00:22:fa:58:49:f2
wpa_driver_nl80211_set_key: ifindex=4 alg=0 addr=0x448ff8 key_idx=0
set_tx=0 seq_len=0 key_len=0
wpa_driver_nl80211_set_key: ifindex=4 alg=0 addr=0x448ff8 key_idx=1
set_tx=0 seq_len=0 key_len=0
wpa_driver_nl80211_set_key: ifindex=4 alg=0 addr=0x448ff8 key_idx=2
set_tx=0 seq_len=0 key_len=0
wpa_driver_nl80211_set_key: ifindex=4 alg=0 addr=0x448ff8 key_idx=3
set_tx=0 seq_len=0 key_len=0
RSN: flushing PMKID list in the driver
Setting scan request: 0 sec 100000 usec
EAPOL: SUPP_PAE entering state DISCONNECTED
EAPOL: Supplicant port status: Unauthorized
EAPOL: KEY_RX entering state NO_KEY_RECEIVE
EAPOL: SUPP_BE entering state INITIALIZE
EAP: EAP entering state DISABLED
EAPOL: Supplicant port status: Unauthorized
EAPOL: Supplicant port status: Unauthorized
Added interface wlan0
RTM_NEWLINK: operstate=0 ifi_flags=0x1002 ()
RTM_NEWLINK, IFLA_IFNAME: Interface 'wlan0' added
Ignore event for foreign ifindex 3
Ignore event for foreign ifindex 3
RTM_NEWLINK: operstate=0 ifi_flags=0x1003 ([UP])
RTM_NEWLINK, IFLA_IFNAME: Interface 'wlan0' added
Trying to get current scan results first without requesting a new scan
to speed up initial association
Received scan results (0 BSSes)
BSS: Start scan result update 1
Cached scan results are empty - not posting
Selecting BSS from priority group 0
Try to find WPA-enabled AP
Try to find non-WPA AP
No suitable network found
Setting scan request: 0 sec 0 usec
State: DISCONNECTED -> SCANNING
Starting AP scan for wildcard SSID
Scan requested (ret=0) - scan timeout 10 seconds
EAPOL: disable timer tick
EAPOL: Supplicant port status: Unauthorized
nl80211: Event message available
nl80211: New scan results available
Received scan results (10 BSSes)
BSS: Start scan result update 2
BSS: Add new id 0 BSSID 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb SSID 'WIFI'
BSS: Add new id 1 BSSID 00:25:9c:19:95:99 SSID 'metanoeo-ing-dragon'
BSS: Add new id 2 BSSID 00:24:7b:f3:1d:ac SSID 'chesterdog'
BSS: Add new id 3 BSSID 00:20:a6:49:a5:ca SSID 'WIFI'
BSS: Add new id 4 BSSID 62:24:7b:f4:0a:dd SSID 'croucher'
BSS: Add new id 5 BSSID 00:24:7b:f4:6e:94 SSID 'myqwest2310'
BSS: Add new id 6 BSSID 00:22:b0:b2:d4:ec SSID 'Stewlander'
BSS: Add new id 7 BSSID 00:15:05:0c:2e:d1 SSID 'ACTIONTEC'
BSS: Add new id 8 BSSID 00:24:7b:f7:48:f0 SSID 'Mosleys10'
BSS: Add new id 9 BSSID 00:24:7b:f4:0a:dc SSID 'myqwest1554'
New scan results available
Selecting BSS from priority group 0
Try to find WPA-enabled AP
0: 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb ssid='WIFI' wpa_ie_len=22 rsn_ie_len=0 caps=0x431
   selected based on WPA IE
   selected WPA AP 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb ssid='WIFI'
Automatic auth_alg selection: 0x1
WPA: using IEEE 802.11i/D3.0
WPA: Selected cipher suites: group 8 pairwise 8 key_mgmt 2 proto 1
WPA: set AP WPA IE - hexdump(len=24): dd 16 00 50 f2 01 01 00 00 50 f2
02 01 00 00 50 f2 02 01 00 00 50 f2 02
WPA: clearing AP RSN IE
WPA: using GTK TKIP
WPA: using PTK TKIP
WPA: using KEY_MGMT WPA-PSK
WPA: Set own WPA IE default - hexdump(len=24): dd 16 00 50 f2 01 01 00
00 50 f2 02 01 00 00 50 f2 02 01 00 00 50 f2 02
Cancelling scan request
Trying to authenticate with 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb (SSID='WIFI' freq=2462
MHz)
No keys have been configured - skip key clearing
State: SCANNING -> AUTHENTICATING
EAPOL: External notification - EAP success=0
EAPOL: Supplicant port status: Unauthorized
EAPOL: External notification - EAP fail=0
EAPOL: Supplicant port status: Unauthorized
EAPOL: External notification - portControl=Auto
EAPOL: Supplicant port status: Unauthorized
nl80211: Authenticate (ifindex=4)
  * bssid=00:20:a6:49:a5:cb
  * freq=2462
  * SSID - hexdump_ascii(len=4):
     57 49 46 49                                       WIFI
  * IEs - hexdump(len=0): [NULL]
  * Auth Type 0
nl80211: Authentication request send successfully
RTM_NEWLINK: operstate=0 ifi_flags=0x1003 ([UP])
RTM_NEWLINK, IFLA_IFNAME: Interface 'wlan0' added
nl80211: Event message available
nl80211: MLME event 37
SME: Authentication response: peer=00:20:a6:49:a5:cb auth_type=0
status_code=0
Trying to associate with 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb (SSID='WIFI' freq=2462 MHz)
State: AUTHENTICATING -> ASSOCIATING
wpa_driver_nl80211_set_operstate: operstate 0->0 (DORMANT)
netlink: Operstate: linkmode=-1, operstate=5
nl80211: Associate (ifindex=4)
  * bssid=00:20:a6:49:a5:cb
  * freq=2462
  * SSID - hexdump_ascii(len=4):
     57 49 46 49                                       WIFI
  * IEs - hexdump(len=24): dd 16 00 50 f2 01 01 00 00 50 f2 02 01 00
00 50 f2 02 01 00 00 50 f2 02
nl80211: Association request send successfully
RTM_NEWLINK: operstate=0 ifi_flags=0x1003 ([UP])
RTM_NEWLINK, IFLA_IFNAME: Interface 'wlan0' added
nl80211: Event message available
nl80211: MLME event 38
Association info event
resp_ies - hexdump(len=16): 01 08 82 84 8b 96 0c 18 30 48 32 04 12 24
60 6c
freq=2462 MHz
State: ASSOCIATING -> ASSOCIATED
wpa_driver_nl80211_set_operstate: operstate 0->0 (DORMANT)
netlink: Operstate: linkmode=-1, operstate=5
Associated to a new BSS: BSSID=00:20:a6:49:a5:cb
No keys have been configured - skip key clearing
Associated with 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb
WPA: Association event - clear replay counter
WPA: Clear old PTK
EAPOL: External notification - portEnabled=0
EAPOL: Supplicant port status: Unauthorized
EAPOL: External notification - portValid=0
EAPOL: Supplicant port status: Unauthorized
EAPOL: External notification - EAP success=0
EAPOL: Supplicant port status: Unauthorized
EAPOL: External notification - portEnabled=1
EAPOL: SUPP_PAE entering state CONNECTING
EAPOL: enable timer tick
EAPOL: SUPP_BE entering state IDLE
Setting authentication timeout: 10 sec 0 usec
Cancelling scan request
RTM_NEWLINK: operstate=0 ifi_flags=0x11003 ([UP][LOWER_UP])
RTM_NEWLINK, IFLA_IFNAME: Interface 'wlan0' added
RTM_NEWLINK: operstate=0 ifi_flags=0x11003 ([UP][LOWER_UP])
RTM_NEWLINK, IFLA_IFNAME: Interface 'wlan0' added
RX EAPOL from 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb
Setting authentication timeout: 10 sec 0 usec
IEEE 802.1X RX: version=1 type=3 length=95
  EAPOL-Key type=254
  key_info 0x89 (ver=1 keyidx=0 rsvd=0 Pairwise Ack)
  key_length=32 key_data_length=0
  replay_counter - hexdump(len=8): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02
  key_nonce - hexdump(len=32): 6a 8f e7 1c f1 1a 59 f5 e9 37 41 dd df
5b 9f db 2d c3 5b 28 40 d8 ad 10 11 c5 e3 42 6f 6f ba 8c
  key_iv - hexdump(len=16): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00
  key_rsc - hexdump(len=8): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  key_id (reserved) - hexdump(len=8): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  key_mic - hexdump(len=16): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00
State: ASSOCIATED -> 4WAY_HANDSHAKE
WPA: RX message 1 of 4-Way Handshake from 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb (ver=1)
WPA: Renewed SNonce - hexdump(len=32): 6f 2f 1c 02 a1 97 e5 6f 70 56
6f ec 80 50 f9 41 09 c4 93 22 0a 69 77 15 4f 31 f8 12 0a ae 03 9f
WPA: PTK derivation - A1=00:22:fa:58:49:f2 A2=00:20:a6:49:a5:cb
WPA: PMK - hexdump(len=32): [REMOVED]
WPA: PTK - hexdump(len=64): [REMOVED]
WPA: WPA IE for msg 2/4 - hexdump(len=24): dd 16 00 50 f2 01 01 00 00
50 f2 02 01 00 00 50 f2 02 01 00 00 50 f2 02
WPA: Sending EAPOL-Key 2/4
RX EAPOL from 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb
IEEE 802.1X RX: version=1 type=3 length=119
  EAPOL-Key type=254
  key_info 0x1c9 (ver=1 keyidx=0 rsvd=0 Pairwise Install Ack MIC)
  key_length=32 key_data_length=24
  replay_counter - hexdump(len=8): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 03
  key_nonce - hexdump(len=32): 6a 8f e7 1c f1 1a 59 f5 e9 37 41 dd df
5b 9f db 2d c3 5b 28 40 d8 ad 10 11 c5 e3 42 6f 6f ba 8c
  key_iv - hexdump(len=16): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00
  key_rsc - hexdump(len=8): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  key_id (reserved) - hexdump(len=8): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  key_mic - hexdump(len=16): 5c 7b d7 8b 98 84 13 78 93 9e 55 4d b0 14
88 f2
State: 4WAY_HANDSHAKE -> 4WAY_HANDSHAKE
WPA: RX message 3 of 4-Way Handshake from 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb (ver=1)
WPA: IE KeyData - hexdump(len=24): dd 16 00 50 f2 01 01 00 00 50 f2 02
01 00 00 50 f2 02 01 00 00 50 f2 02
WPA: Sending EAPOL-Key 4/4
WPA: Installing PTK to the driver.
WPA: RSC - hexdump(len=6): 00 00 00 00 00 00
wpa_driver_nl80211_set_key: ifindex=4 alg=2 addr=0xe737f0 key_idx=0
set_tx=1 seq_len=6 key_len=32
   addr=00:20:a6:49:a5:cb
State: 4WAY_HANDSHAKE -> GROUP_HANDSHAKE
RX EAPOL from 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb
IEEE 802.1X RX: version=1 type=3 length=127
  EAPOL-Key type=254
  key_info 0x3a1 (ver=1 keyidx=2 rsvd=0 Group Ack MIC Secure)
  key_length=32 key_data_length=32
  replay_counter - hexdump(len=8): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 04
  key_nonce - hexdump(len=32): 6a 8f e7 1c f1 1a 59 f5 e9 37 41 dd df
5b 9f db 2d c3 5b 28 40 d8 ad 10 11 c5 e3 42 6f 6f ba 8b
  key_iv - hexdump(len=16): 6a 8f e7 1c f1 1a 59 f5 e9 37 41 dd df 5b 9f db
  key_rsc - hexdump(len=8): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  key_id (reserved) - hexdump(len=8): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  key_mic - hexdump(len=16): fb 98 b0 9a e1 bc 17 1f 02 c3 5b ba e6 67 db 41
WPA: RX message 1 of Group Key Handshake from 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb (ver=1)
State: GROUP_HANDSHAKE -> GROUP_HANDSHAKE
WPA: Group Key - hexdump(len=32): [REMOVED]
WPA: Installing GTK to the driver (keyidx=2 tx=0 len=32).
WPA: RSC - hexdump(len=6): 00 00 00 00 00 00
wpa_driver_nl80211_set_key: ifindex=4 alg=2 addr=0x448ff8 key_idx=2
set_tx=0 seq_len=6 key_len=32
WPA: Sending EAPOL-Key 2/2
WPA: Key negotiation completed with 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb [PTK=TKIP GTK=TKIP]
Cancelling authentication timeout
State: GROUP_HANDSHAKE -> COMPLETED
CTRL-EVENT-CONNECTED - Connection to 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb completed
(auth) [id=0 id_str=]
wpa_driver_nl80211_set_operstate: operstate 0->1 (UP)
netlink: Operstate: linkmode=-1, operstate=6
EAPOL: External notification - portValid=1
EAPOL: External notification - EAP success=1
EAPOL: SUPP_PAE entering state AUTHENTICATING
EAPOL: SUPP_BE entering state SUCCESS
EAP: EAP entering state DISABLED
EAPOL: SUPP_PAE entering state AUTHENTICATED
EAPOL: Supplicant port status: Authorized
EAPOL: SUPP_BE entering state IDLE
EAPOL authentication completed successfully
RTM_NEWLINK: operstate=1 ifi_flags=0x11043 ([UP][RUNNING][LOWER_UP])
RTM_NEWLINK, IFLA_IFNAME: Interface 'wlan0' added
EAPOL: startWhen --> 0
EAPOL: disable timer tick

What do I have to do to make it so that my client will only connect to
"WIFI" on the 5.825Ghz radio?

Thanks,

Curtis

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Pavel Roskin]

On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 23:54 -0600, Curtis Larsen wrote:

> I now have the new wpa_supplicant-0.7.1 working with the nl80211
> driver, but still cannot
> force 5ghz.

I confirm that scan_freq is accepted by the current wpa_supplicant but
has no reliable effect.  Both ath5k and ath9k connected to an AP on the
channel 6 when "scan_freq=2412" was in the configuration file.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Curtis Larsen]

Does anyone know of another way to force a client to only connect to
the 5ghz band?  I can only think of a few other options:

1- Find/make a u.f.l. antenna that somehow only does 5ghz - so far
everything I see is both 2.4 and 5ghz.
2- Find a 5ghz only 802.11n adapter that works with linux (I don't
think this exists).
3- Use Windows (sad ...but it is the difference between 30Mbps and
60Mbps in this case)

Thanks,

Curtis


On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 23:54 -0600, Curtis Larsen wrote:
>
>> I now have the new wpa_supplicant-0.7.1 working with the nl80211
>> driver, but still cannot
>> force 5ghz.
>
> I confirm that scan_freq is accepted by the current wpa_supplicant but
> has no reliable effect. ?Both ath5k and ath9k connected to an AP on the
> channel 6 when "scan_freq=2412" was in the configuration file.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Pavel Roskin
>

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Jouni Malinen]

On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 16:16 -0700, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> I confirm that scan_freq is accepted by the current wpa_supplicant but
> has no reliable effect.  Both ath5k and ath9k connected to an AP on the
> channel 6 when "scan_freq=2412" was in the configuration file.

scan_freq is not supposed to limit the association to specific channels;
it is only to limit scan requests made by wpa_supplicant. You may still
find BSSes on other channels either due to scan requests made by other
programs or by receiving Beacon/Probe Response frames on another
channel.

If there is interest for limiting the association to specific channels,
it should be trivial addition to wpa_supplicant (with nl80211). I don't
know whether I would fully agree on this being a useful thing for
general use, but I can understand it at least as a testing tool (which
people may then misuse for other things ;-).

- Jouni

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 07:02:40PM -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 16:16 -0700, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > I confirm that scan_freq is accepted by the current wpa_supplicant but
> > has no reliable effect.  Both ath5k and ath9k connected to an AP on the
> > channel 6 when "scan_freq=2412" was in the configuration file.
> 
> scan_freq is not supposed to limit the association to specific channels;
> it is only to limit scan requests made by wpa_supplicant. You may still
> find BSSes on other channels either due to scan requests made by other
> programs or by receiving Beacon/Probe Response frames on another
> channel.
> 
> If there is interest for limiting the association to specific channels,
> it should be trivial addition to wpa_supplicant (with nl80211). I don't
> know whether I would fully agree on this being a useful thing for
> general use, but I can understand it at least as a testing tool (which
> people may then misuse for other things ;-).

We could add a new command to disable a channel. That would take
care of custom channel configurations.

  Luis

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Curtis Larsen]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Jouni Malinen
<jouni.malinen@atheros.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 16:16 -0700, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>> I confirm that scan_freq is accepted by the current wpa_supplicant but
>> has no reliable effect. ?Both ath5k and ath9k connected to an AP on the
>> channel 6 when "scan_freq=2412" was in the configuration file.
>
> scan_freq is not supposed to limit the association to specific channels;
> it is only to limit scan requests made by wpa_supplicant. You may still
> find BSSes on other channels either due to scan requests made by other
> programs or by receiving Beacon/Probe Response frames on another
> channel.
>
> If there is interest for limiting the association to specific channels,
> it should be trivial addition to wpa_supplicant (with nl80211).

Wireless vendors have started to realize the problem here and have
begun implementing features to help.  An example from the latest Cisco
Controller configuration guide for 802.11n AP's:

...Configuring Band Selection

The 2.4-GHz band is often congested. Clients on this band typically
experience interference from Bluetooth devices, microwave ovens, and
cordless phones as well as co-channel interference from other access
points because of the 802.11b/g limit of three non-overlapping
channels. To combat these sources of interference and improve overall
network performance, controller software release 6.0 enables you to
configure band selection on the controller. This feature enables
client radios that are capable of dual-band (2.4- and 5-GHz) operation
to move to a less congested 5-GHz access point...

> I don't
> know whether I would fully agree on this being a useful thing for
> general use, but I can understand it at least as a testing tool

Yes, how can one accurately simulate an end user problem when their
client is on a different band than yours and you have no control over
which band your client lands on.

>(which
> people may then misuse for other things ;-).

Years ago Intel (and I think some Broadcom) made that same decision
with many of their Windows drivers, and now recently Microsoft with
Vista and Windows 7 thought it was important enough to at least have
the option.  Agreed ...it is not on the first page of the
configuration, but it is an option for those of us looking hard enough
to find it.

...Especially if it is "trivial" ...please consider adding.  For me,
it's the only reason I occasionally have to boot Windows.

Thanks,

Curtis

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Curtis Larsen]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Curtis Larsen <curtlarsen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Jouni Malinen
> <jouni.malinen@atheros.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 16:16 -0700, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>>> I confirm that scan_freq is accepted by the current wpa_supplicant but
>>> has no reliable effect. ?Both ath5k and ath9k connected to an AP on the
>>> channel 6 when "scan_freq=2412" was in the configuration file.
>>
>> scan_freq is not supposed to limit the association to specific channels;
>> it is only to limit scan requests made by wpa_supplicant. You may still
>> find BSSes on other channels either due to scan requests made by other
>> programs or by receiving Beacon/Probe Response frames on another
>> channel.
>>
>> If there is interest for limiting the association to specific channels,
>> it should be trivial addition to wpa_supplicant (with nl80211).
>
> Wireless vendors have started to realize the problem here and have
> begun implementing features to help. ?An example from the latest Cisco
> Controller configuration guide for 802.11n AP's:
>
> ...Configuring Band Selection
>
> The 2.4-GHz band is often congested. Clients on this band typically
> experience interference from Bluetooth devices, microwave ovens, and
> cordless phones as well as co-channel interference from other access
> points because of the 802.11b/g limit of three non-overlapping
> channels. To combat these sources of interference and improve overall
> network performance, controller software release 6.0 enables you to
> configure band selection on the controller. This feature enables
> client radios that are capable of dual-band (2.4- and 5-GHz) operation
> to move to a less congested 5-GHz access point...
>
>> I don't
>> know whether I would fully agree on this being a useful thing for
>> general use, but I can understand it at least as a testing tool
>
> Yes, how can one accurately simulate an end user problem when their
> client is on a different band than yours and you have no control over
> which band your client lands on.
>
>>(which
>> people may then misuse for other things ;-).
>
> Years ago Intel (and I think some Broadcom) made that same decision
> with many of their Windows drivers, and now recently Microsoft with
> Vista and Windows 7 thought it was important enough to at least have
> the option. ?Agreed ...it is not on the first page of the
> configuration, but it is an option for those of us looking hard enough
> to find it.
>
> ...Especially if it is "trivial" ...please consider adding. ?For me,
> it's the only reason I occasionally have to boot Windows.

In case anyone else reads this thread... this feature is added in the
current development tree.  Thanks to Jouni I was able to get it
working on ubuntu 9.10 by doing the following:

1- git clone git://w1.fi/srv/git/hostap.git
2- cd /home/clarsen/hostap/wpa_supplicant
3- copy defconfig to .config, then edit .config to enable nl80211 driver.
4 - Type make ...(this failed on first try and gave an error that
something libdevel or some thing I can't remember was missing
5- Installed missing lib-devel package.
6- Typed make again - this time it finished compiling all the way through.
7- Added "freq_list =5825" to network config block
8- Typed sudo ./wpa_supplicant -c /etc/wpa_supplicant/WIFI.conf -i
wlan0 -D nl80211 -d
9- Successfully connected to 5ghz radio as desired - (prior to this
feature my client always chose 2.4Ghz).


I can see in the wpa_supplicant output that shows it is *skipping* the
"WIFI" SSID in the 2.4Ghz band:

0: 00:20:a6:49:a5:cb ssid='WIFI' wpa_ie_len=22 rsn_ie_len=0 caps=0x431
   selected based on WPA IE
   skip - frequency not allowed
1: 00:20:a6:49:a5:ca ssid='WIFI' wpa_ie_len=22 rsn_ie_len=0 caps=0x411
   selected based on WPA IE
   selected WPA AP 00:20:a6:49:a5:ca ssid='WIFI'


So ...it seems to work great now!


Thanks,

Curtis

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Curtis Larsen]

> 7- Added "freq_list =5825" to network config block
> 8- Typed sudo ./wpa_supplicant -c /etc/wpa_supplicant/WIFI.conf -i
> wlan0 -D nl80211 -d
> 9- Successfully connected to 5ghz radio as desired - (prior to this
> feature my client always chose 2.4Ghz).

The only problem is ... when I list several frequencies like this:

freq_list=5180,5200,5220,5240,5260,5280,5300,5320,5745,5765,5785,5805,5825

...I hoped it would still choose the "best" 5Ghz SSID, but it seems as
though it only tries for 5180

How is this feature intended to work?  Does it only work with the
first frequency in the list?  If it works with multiple frequencies
have I not specified them correctly?  Do I need spaces instead of
commas or something?  I guess I was hoping this will let me select one
band or the other, not just one frequency or another.  Let me know if
that is possible.


Thanks,

Curtis

[ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz?

[Jouni Malinen]

On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 10:10 -0700, Curtis Larsen wrote:

> freq_list=5180,5200,5220,5240,5260,5280,5300,5320,5745,5765,5785,5805,5825

That list is space, not comma, separated (freq_list=5180 5200 5220 ...).
I would assume that this particular example ends up getting interpreted
as a single frequency..

- Jouni