Hello, Thank you for the response! Not sure if we understood each other correctly. I was thinking about whether making it possible to define an FST group for each BSS you want to have an MB IE (and be subject to FST) would make sense. So basically the act of defining an FST group for the BSS would enable FST on the BSS. To me, this sounds exactly like the means for configuring a subset of configured BSSes to be included in the FST processing you mentioned. --- Regards, P. On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Jouni Malinen <j@xxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 04:39:14AM +0300, Petko Bordjukov wrote: >> Now on to the next issue. Currently hostapd does not seem to add the MB IE to >> any secondary BSSes that are configured on a given interface. Does it make sense >> to be able to define an FST group per BSS instead of per interface? > > There may not be an easy and generic answer to that.. There might be use > cases where this is desired while there are likely cases where it is > not. It might make sense to provide means for configuring a subset of > configured BSSes to be included in the FST processing. > > -- > Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
