Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:28:23 -0700 From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Oops! (was: Support for Intel 5100 WiFi ?) Message-ID: <14851.1349645303@tristatelogic.com> In-Reply-To: <201210071040.01104.bschmidt@techwires.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <201210071040.01104.bschmidt@techwires.net>, Bernhard Schmidt <bschmidt@techwires.net> wrote: >iwn(4) does support 11n, 5GHz and 40MHz channels. Though, it might >be better to switch to 9.x as it has received many many enhancements. OK. I suspected that might be the case. I'm glad that I asked! Is the iwn(4) driver in 9.0 pretty good. Or are there some things in 9.1-RC1 (relating to iwn) that I might possibly want/need? (I prefer to stick with official releases, if possible.) >Using those features is rather easy, it does so by default ;) OK. I want to make sure that I understand what you just said. (Please note that I was almost entirely ignorant about the standards and the current state of technology with respect to ALL of this wireless stuff up until about three weeks ago, but I have tried my best to learn since then, so bear with me here.) If I have understood you correctly, then you are saying that, with respect to the decision of whether to use or, alternatively, to not use 11n (falling back to 11g if necessary), *and* with respect to the decision to use or not use 5GHz (falling back to 2.4Ghz if necessary), *and* with respect to the decision of whether to use or not use 40GHz channels (falling back to 20MHz if necessary), the client does not get to make any of its own decisions about any of these things, and it must instead just follow the lead of whatever AP it is trying to connect to. Is that correct? Have I understood you correctly? (Forgive me. I'me really just still feeling my way through all of this stuff.)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14851.1349645303>