From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:35432 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750932AbdIENYC (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Sep 2017 09:24:02 -0400 Message-ID: <1504617839.12380.14.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20170905_152409_001154_0F9C4977) Subject: Re: Cisco's Wi-Fi Direct Client Policy and iwlwifi (8260) From: Johannes Berg To: Luca Coelho , Dariusz Gadomski , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 15:23:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1503076588.15969.320.camel@coelho.fi> (sfid-20170818_191635_285265_E87AFEA4) References: <20170818124800.q4r6xtflexkbetzq@leonard> <1503076588.15969.320.camel@coelho.fi> (sfid-20170818_191635_285265_E87AFEA4) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2017-08-18 at 20:16 +0300, Luca Coelho wrote: > > I have heard about this before.  The issue is that the Cisco AP > doesn't allow the 8260 to connect because it has the P2P IE in > it.  But AFAICT it is not against any specs to include this IE.  The > Cisco AP is using the IE as an indication that we are trying to > connect as a P2P device, which in this case we are not. I believe that this is technically incorrect: they're assuming that because P2P IEs are included, the device is P2P *capable* - completely unrelated to connecting as a P2P-client (vs. a regular BSS client). Because the device is P2P capable, there's a policy decision in the configuration to not allow these clients to connect. This is actually described in sections 3.4.3/3.4.4 of the P2P spec, and we should probably implement the recommendations there? johannes