Wpa_supplicant mystery

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Saturday 10 May 2008, Adalbert Prokop wrote:
> Timothy Murphy wrote on Saturday 10 May 2008:
>
> Hello!
>
> > >> If in fact wpa_supplicant is a necessary part of NetworkManager
> > >> even if one is not using WPA,
> > >> would it not make more sense to change its name?
> > >
> > > NetworkManager uses wpa_supplicant to do network security this way it
> > > doesnt
> > > need to reinvent the wheel.  it is the same on all distros.
> >
> > What is the same on all distros?
> > Wpa_supplicant? NetworkManager?
> > NetworkManager using wpa_supplicant?
> >
> > If in fact a program called wpa_supplicant is run
> > in order to establish WiFi security
> > even if WPA is not being used,
>
> wpa_supplicant can also setup WEP encryption, static or based on RADIUS
> authentication. AFAIK NetworkManager uses wpa_supplicant as the only
> backend to WiFi security. It surely has its advantages, because this way
> you have only to deal with *one* helper problem.
>
> I don't know if NM needs wpa_supplicant on unencrypted connections.
>
> Besides, NM is OK if you have rather simple network environment, e.g. only
> one WLAN card and one LAN card, you use only static WPA or WEP keys, you
> have a DHCP server, and so on, and so on...
>
> Each time the setup is more complex (no LAN DHCP, two WLAN cards or WPA +
> PEAP/MSCHAPv2) my experience tells me that it simply can't do it. (V0.6.7
> on Ubuntu.) The non-existent documentation does not help either.

That NM is ancient,  Fedora-8's and 9's are much more flexible,  they support 
multiple devices.  including mobile broadband devices,  many more security 
options.

Dennis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20080510/f56ced71/attachment-0001.sig>