Re: outgoing interface field

[Johannes Berg <johannes-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1411 bytes --]


> Are you injecting by sending data to a socket?  I think the sockets are
> bound to VAPs, not to PHYs since VAPs are seen as network devices.

Yes. The socket is bound to a _cooked monitor_ interface.

> Besides, are you going to serve more than one VAP with one socket?  I
> would not do it without a good reason.  I think ioctl on the socket
> would be an easier solution, as it needs to be done once per VAP, not
> once per packet.

Well, yes, of course we're going to serve multiple BSSes with one socket
if they're all associated to one physical interface. Why not? It makes
the code much cleaner and nicer. Why do you think I need a good reason
to do this? I think you need a good reason _not to_ and this isn't a
good reason. Besides, ioctls suck.

> >  Further uses would be to use, for
> > data frames, the fragmentation/RTS threshold from the given interface.
> > 
> > I don't, off-hand, see any other OS requiring this, so I'm shopping
> > around asking vendors if I can have part of their vendor OUI namespace
> > (one of the sub-namespaces) for Linux, but if anybody sees value in such
> > a field for other OSes we can also add it to the standard.
> 
> We could probably register an official Linux OUI for that if the code is
> intended for Linux.

Who'd pay for it, and why bother to pollute the OUI namespace with
something we're not using elsewhere?

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]