I got a situation with both cases. To support the decision for 1st case, I would say that today hostapd also allows such "invalid" configurations and fallsback to ht20. On 1 April 2017 at 13:39, Jouni Malinen <j@xxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 01:02:11PM +0200, Eduardo Abinader wrote: >> As hostapd currently allows some flexibility (fallback to ht20) on >> setting channel to channel 20MHz, although ht40+/- has been initially >> configured. >> This patch just extends such flexibility. That said, ch165 fcc would >> be then supported. >> Doesn´t that make sense to allow such flexibility? > > That depends.. If the configuration file is explicitly specifying a > HT40+ channel with a given primary and secondary channels and either of > those channels is not allowed, that configuration file should be > rejected. On the other hand, if the configuration file is not specifying > a channel (i.e., using ACS) and indicates HT40+ can be enabled, then it > would make sense to allow fallback. I'm not sure which of those cases > this patch is trying to address. I know it does address the first one > and that's the one I don't think should be applied. If it is also needed > for the second case, it would make sense to add it, but I'd like to > understand what configuration parameters can hit this case. > > -- > Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
