Hi Jouni, Is the patch in or out please? thanks. On 1 April 2017 at 13:49, Eduardo Abinader <eduardoabinader@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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
