Hi, > > But I suspect that it could be that you're testing this in the wrong > way? From your description, it almost seems like you turn off the AP > interface, and roam after that? I'm not sure that's really realistic. Yes, your right. I guess we just got away with this since the behavior was different previously. > If > you wanted to test the "a few beacons were lost" behaviour, then > you'd > really have to lose a few beacons only (perhaps by adding something > to > wmediumd?), and not drop the AP off the air entirely. Yeah, I think this is what we will have to do. Target beacons specifically to block (and just a few) vs everything. > > If the AP is in fact completely unreachable, then I'm pretty sure > real > hardware will behave just like hwsim here, albeit perhaps a bit > slower, > though not by much. And then you'd have the same issue there. > > The fact that hwsim behaved differently would likely have been just a > timing thing - it didn't advertise REPORTS_TX_ACK_STATUS, so we'd > wait a > bit longer until deciding that the AP really was truly gone. If the > ACK > status is reported we just send a (few?) quick nullfunc(s) and decide > that very quickly. But that's independent on hwsim or real hardware. > > > johannes > Thanks, James
