Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:57715 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755841Ab3IIXKV (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2013 19:10:21 -0400 Message-ID: <522E5558.4070008@candelatech.com> (sfid-20130910_011024_365520_74573744) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:10:16 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Krishna Chaitanya CC: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "hostap@lists.shmoo.com" Subject: Re: Always send management frames at MCS-0?? References: <522E1D31.2090403@candelatech.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/09/2013 12:15 PM, Krishna Chaitanya wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Ben Greear wrote: >> I had a user request that we support always sending management frames >> (such as EAPOL) at the lowest rate. Evidently, other equipment does this, >> where as normal-ish supplicant/linux tends to send them at much higher >> rates. >> >> Any suggestions on how to go about doing this properly? >> >> Any opinions on whether it's a good idea or not? > > EAPOL frames are data frams from WLAN perspective > and are unicast, thats why we send at highest possible > MCS supported. There is no advantage in forcing them to > go at lower rates. > Would forcing them to a lower rate at least theoretically improve the chance that the packets are properly delivered? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com