[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Wireless module bcm43xx in 2.6.17 kernel

George Borisov wrote:

Freddy Freeloader wrote:
No.  I just listed the ssid in wpa_supplicant.conf.  I didn't set the
channel or the ssid with iwconfig as I've never had to do that before. I'll try it, but what's the reasoning behind using iwconfig for that
when wpa_supplicant is supposed to take care of it?  Or, is it just my
overall ignorance of wireless networking showing up here?

I haven't had much opportunity to use wireless stuff in Linux, so my
knowledge is a bit sketchy...

That said, I'm not sure if wpa_supplicant actually sets the SSID or just
uses it to identify which section of configuration to use (I believe you
can have encryption settings for more than one network?)

The reason to use iwconfig is to tell the adapter which network it needs
to associate with / which channel to use.

I am not clear from your previous posts whether you managed to get it to
work without encryption, but if you can see the networks with iwlist and
can't dhcp (when there is a server) it sounds like your network adapter
is not associated with the router/access point.

Hope this helps,

wpa_supplicant sets the SSID through the /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf file. You also set channel, mode, encryption key, encryption type, no encryption, specific AP, several different AP's, or any AP, etc... in this same file. In conjuction with that it is capable of setting priorities so that you can set your network card to have a high priority for your home or work network and be able to set up your card to automatically scan and access the other networks if your high priority network isn't available. It is very flexible. It takes a little while to figure out the syntax for the script but once you do it's pretty easy to work with. I realize that my card isn't associating with my AP. That's the problem. With encryption it's been impossible with this new kernel module, and now even my unencrypted connections have become very flaky.

Reply to: