Hi Jouni,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Vitaly Wool <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vitalywool@gmail.com">vitalywool@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>> So what's next? I'm eager to come back with a patch but it looks like we<br>
> need to have a common ground on how to fix this. I suggest that we run<br>
> specific scan in P2P case for this SSID (it is known by p2p_supplicant), it<br>
> will require very minimal changes in the whole flow. Alternatively, P2P<br>
> wildcard SSID can be used but then there should be some additional logic in<br>
> picking up the right session (e. g. if the scan was run for P2P wildcard,<br>
> do not request exact SSID match). Of course one may have a better idea :)<br>
<br>
</div>Can you provide more information about the device you used in this test?<br>
Does the driver use mac80211? Or cfg80211?<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>The driver uses mac80211.</div><div class="im"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
As far as changing scanning behavior is concerned, I need to understand<br>
which exact Probe Request frame is the one that is not getting a<br>
response. If this is the one sent in the beginning of p2p_connect join<br>
command, it should be fine to force the Probe Request to use P2P<br>
wildcard SSID (and include P2P IE).<br><font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div> Ok, I'll come up with an RFC patch later today.</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>
so here comes the patch. Or should I post it in a separate thread?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div> Vitaly</div></div>