From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 09:20:41 +0200 From: Antonio Quartulli Message-ID: <20100517072041.GA23674@ritirata.org> References: <20100508170755.GA27599@ritirata.org> <201005170337.45135.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> <20100516212754.GB2364@ritirata.org> <201005170653.01657.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201005170653.01657.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Blocking OGMs from a node for testing purpose Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking On lun, mag 17, 2010 at 06:53:01 +0800, Marek Lindner wrote: > On Monday 17 May 2010 05:27:55 Antonio Quartulli wrote: > > It is what i described just a few rows before..the problem is that > > adding wlan0 interface to a eth-bridge (using cfg80211 driver) is not > > possible (due to operation not permitted error, probably because devs > > don't want to do that :P) either with iwlagn or rt2x00 > > Ok, I did not quite get that the first time but it seems you are right: The wifi > stack sets IFF_DONT_BRIDGE on any wifi interface in adhoc or station mode to > keep it from being added to a bridge. Normally, this would be a very correct > behaviour .. > > Then we have to add ebtables support by calling some ebtables hooks that will > tell us whether or not to drop the packet ? Is that possible (I'm not the > ebtables expert here) ? :-) > I'm not an expert too :P But it would be very nice, in this way bat0 could be controlled like a bridge. Thanks. > Cheers, > Marek -- Antonio Quartulli Ognuno di noi, da solo, non vale nulla Ernesto "Che" Guevara