On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Jouni Malinen <j@xxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 10:35:07AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> I was wondering if actively disassociating might help with a smoother >> transition. I was under this why we were doing this in the first place. >> I frankly do not know, but if it does not help then I do agree with >> your patch replacement. > > In many cases, it may end up harming more than helping.. At minimum, it > takes some time to transmit the frame (and do the channel changes, if > needed). Furthermore, this makes it more difficult for centrally managed > networks to optimize roaming since we would be disassociating and > associating as a new association instead of doing proper re-association. > In such networks, the APs (or well, likely some sort of central manager) > takes care of clearing the old association when the reassociation is > being processed. In addition, this could potentially tunnel some frames > through the new AP or at least make sure that bridge tables gets > updated. > Jouni, just to be clear so you are fine with dropping explicitly the tear down of the BA agreement to the old AP? Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
