Return-path: Received: from mail-gx0-f167.google.com ([209.85.217.167]:40529 "EHLO mail-gx0-f167.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752697AbZCMDJ4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:09:56 -0400 Received: by gxk11 with SMTP id 11so2568776gxk.13 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:09:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:09:53 -0700 Message-ID: <43e72e890903122009h25c7f6d9qcf4365ec32532e31@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20090313_041000_289996_8EBC20D0) Subject: Which APs to disregards from in inputting into the bss list From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Cc: Dan Williams , Jouni Malinen , Johannes Berg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Do we want to ignore certain APs if we determine they are bogus? An example is 11n APs with WEP/TKIP. Would we rather not even store then in our bss list so that way we wont' get reports from users not being able to connect to such APs. Other examples might be if 11n APs have HT IEs but their lengths are not right, or if the AP is HT40 and our regulatory domain does now allow HT40. The benefit I see with these early checks we won't get complaints about not being able to connect to bogus APs or APs you shouldn't be connected to anyway. Luis