From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <5079421E.9000103@altermundi.net> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 07:27:42 -0300 From: =?UTF-8?B?Tmljb0VjaMOhbml6?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <507798EE.80305@codigosur.org> <50779CA3.9070208@yahoo.de> <5077A77B.3040803@altermundi.net> <20121012071559.GB2564@ritirata.org> <5078131D.9070508@altermundi.net> <20121012130457.GA4566@ritirata.org> In-Reply-To: <20121012130457.GA4566@ritirata.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] batman-adv: ap mode with isolation enabled 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 10/12/12 10:04, Antonio Quartulli wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 09:54:53AM -0300, NicoEchániz wrote: >> On 10/12/12 04:15, Antonio Quartulli wrote: > If you use infrastructure mode without AP isolation, batman-adv will consider > all the other STAs as direct neighbours. But, due to infrastructure mode, > packets from STA1 to STA2 will always pass through the AP. This is also why I > would suggest to keep AP-isolation ON if you want to run batman-adv on the > stations and on the AP, but then it depends on what you want to get. Well that was my conclusion, but as I didn't find this "problem" mentioned anywhere I thought I'd share on the list. It's good to know that this is your suggestion also. Maybe it would be worth mentioning this somewhere in the Wiki, for others with a similar setup. cheers