Re: HT action frame code

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 954 bytes --]

On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 12:25 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 13:21 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> 
> > > Right. And if mac80211 is the AP, then I don't see how the STA can start
> > > aggregation since I couldn't find where the relevant action frames are
> > > handled. But you said it's not part of the code now, so I couldn't find
> > > it anyway.
> > 
> > That's probably the current situation.
> 
> So back to square one, where should it be handled? Does it really make
> sense to let hostapd have influence over the decision, or should we just
> move the code that we have a bit and handle it in the kernel? After all,
> we do have all the code necessary to handle it, but it's currently
> restricted to STA mode, and I don't see a fundamental reason for that.

In fact, what if we're in STA mode with userspace MLME? Do we want to
handle all that in userspace then? This doesn't seem sensible to me.

johannes

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