From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
Michael Wu <flamingice@sourmilk.net>
Subject: Re: bridge packets option
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:22:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1188915742.9942.33.camel@johannes.berg> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070903235714.GT1835@jm.kir.nu>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1918 bytes --]
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 16:57 -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> This is by design and in most cases you would not disable
> bridge_packets. This option is to allow the AP to be configured in a
> mode where wireless stations are more isolated from each other, i.e., if
> the multicast source were indeed the wireless client associated to the
> AP, other associated clients would not see these frames (unless
> something else in the network stack were configured to push them back to
> the same interface which is less likely to happen).
Ah, I see, ok.
> Multicast packets
> from other interfaces (e.g., wired Ethernet) would go through to the
> wireless clients regardless of the bridge_packets option.
Right, if bridged with wireless.
> The gain of what? Enabling bridge_packets? Disabling bridge_packets? The
> benefit of enabling it is to make things actually work ;-).
Heh, right.
> Kernel
> bridging code does not (or at least did not the last time I looked)
> allow packets to be bridged back to the same interface which would be
> needed for the case of two wireless stations which are associated to the
> same AP sending packets to each other.
I was thinking more of routing in the unicast case, if a packet comes in
you'd have to route it back to wireless if the destination is there.
Isn't that possible?
> If the bridging code were to be changed to be more aware of 802.11
> interface, I would be happy to get rid of the bridge_packet=1 code in
> mac80211. If I remember correctly, a patch for doing this was submitted
> long time ago and there has been some discussions on this topic, but not
> much progress on this area has happened. Consequently, all 802.11 AP
> implementations will need to continue doing this in the 802.11 code (or
> by using a patched bridge code or custom module for doing this somewhere
> else).
Thanks, I'll look it up.
johannes
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-09-04 14:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-29 16:31 bridge packets option Johannes Berg
2007-09-03 23:57 ` Jouni Malinen
2007-09-04 14:22 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2007-09-05 2:38 ` Jouni Malinen
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=1188915742.9942.33.camel@johannes.berg \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=flamingice@sourmilk.net \
--cc=j@w1.fi \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox