Bugzilla – Bug 1830
Squeezebox 2 cannot connect to Linux Access Point
Last modified: 2008-12-18 11:37:19 UTC
I have a Linux box with a 11g wireless card inside (Dlink DWL-G510). This is run in master mode so it looks like a wireless access point. The Linux setup is: Kernel: 2.6.12-1.1390_FC4 Madwifi Driver: madwifi-kmdl-2.6.12-1.1390_FC4-0.9.4.12-16.rhfc4.at (From AtRPMs) Am running with just 64bit WEP key for now. I know this works because I have a windows laptop that sees and connects to this wirelessly. The laptop gains a DHCP address and functions properly, is able to surf the internet, etc. When I turn the Squeezebox on it can see my access point. When I try and connect, giving the WEP key the 20 second timeout expires. Retry again and again with no luck. This is not a matter of signal strength, the laptop, squeezebox and AP antenna are all on the same desk. If I turn WEP off (ie. make my AP open - not a good idea) then at least the Squeezebox can connect, but it's unable to get an IP address via DHCP. I gave it one manually but it was then unable to see my Slimserver. I can't ping the squeezebox - is it able to reply to ICMPs? I know there is nothing wrong with the slimserver because I ran softsqueeze on the same windows laptop mentioned earlier and it worked fine.
Vidur, I thought this was a dup, but I couldn't find the original. Is this the first filing?
I saw as post on the forum asking for a bug report to be filed. But then could not find any such bug so filed my own. So yes, I think this is the first bug to document this problem.
I believe this is the same issue as bug 1381.
The problem does sound very much like 1381, but I didn't find that because of the lack of mention of Madwifi Atheros driver. Perhaps I should have searched for ath_pci - sorry. Does this mean you know the problem and a fix will be coming very shortly? Would hate to have to return the hardware because of this, or have to invest in more (a dedicated AP that's known to work?).
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1381 ***
Why was this bug changed to 'RESOLVED DUPLICATE'? I see 1381 is a duplicate, but it is not resolved. Also, it's severity is too low. This is a blocker for me. Please only change this back to a duplicate if you up the priority/severity on 1381.
Robin, the RESOLVED DUPLICATE state is the only way we can mark one bug as a duplicate of another. If you have comments to make, please add them to bug 1381 - it is now the single bug that represents this problem. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1381 ***
Also, the Severity/Priority fields are owned by the developer, not the reporter. This is a blocker for you, I understand. In the context of all the bugs we have to deal with, the Serverity/Priority is appropriately set.
This bug was marked resolved in Slimserver 6.1, which is several versions ago. If you're still seeing this bug, please re-open it. Thanks!