From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WDS vs. multi-channel operation
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:02:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <501FDC87.1000204@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1344187324.5765.5.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
On 2012-08-05 7:22 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 19:21 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 19:12 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> > On 2012-07-30 3:36 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> > > Ok so I'm chipping away at multi-channel operation, but WDS is
>> > > troubling. Which channel should it use? It doesn't even have channel
>> > > configuration today, but relies on having a channel already, but that
>> > > breaks when you have multi-channel since then it either has to have its
>> > > own channel or be slaved to another channel...
>> > >
>> > > Anyone have any ideas?
>> > Let's bind WDS interfaces to AP VIFs, then they can be slave to the AP's
>> > channel context. This is necessary for my yet-to-be-resubmitted WDS
>> > fixes anyway.
>>
>> For now I decided that drivers supporting the channel context APIs will
>> not be allowed to support WDS interfaces :-P
>> (and the code in WDS TX will simply take the global channel as before)
>>
>> So ... yes, I think this makes sense, but I'm not sure I care enough to
>> implement it right now, I have enough other things with multi-channel
>> still to do ... Though the question remains *how* we bind them. We could
>> try to match them by MAC address when they're brought up (and require
>> the same MAC address?), or do explicit binding, or something else
>> entirely ...
>>
>> If you're going to require them to be bound to an AP though, where's the
>> difference to the current 4-addr AP_VLAN behaviour? It seems with that
>> you could actually implement a bound-to-AP-WDS entirely in userspace
>> since there's no requirement to actually go through the auth/assoc
>> sequence for hostapd to add the station entry?
>
> Oh and if you actually do need WDS-type interfaces, maybe their role
> should change to be virtual like AP_VLAN-type interfaces?
The difference between WDS and 4-addr AP_VLAN is that WDS is AP<->AP,
not AP<->STA. I guess it would be possible to write some code to create
AP VLANs + station entries for remote APs based on cooked monitor mode
based discovery or some form of mgmt frame exchange.
- Felix
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-06 15:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-30 13:36 WDS vs. multi-channel operation Johannes Berg
2012-08-05 17:12 ` Felix Fietkau
2012-08-05 17:21 ` Johannes Berg
2012-08-05 17:22 ` Johannes Berg
2012-08-06 15:02 ` Felix Fietkau [this message]
2012-08-06 15:06 ` Johannes Berg
2012-08-06 15:13 ` Felix Fietkau
2012-08-06 15:23 ` Johannes Berg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=501FDC87.1000204@openwrt.org \
--to=nbd@openwrt.org \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.