Right, an hostapd instance can handle multiple SSIDs for the same radio, but with multiple radios you nees to start an instance per physical device. Cheers, 2017-03-24 23:12 GMT+01:00 Simon Wunderlich <simon.wunderlich@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Friday, March 24, 2017 10:51:27 PM CET michael-dev wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Am 24.03.2017 15:25, schrieb Simon Wunderlich: >> > sorry for the late follow-up, I'd like to discuss and issue regarding >> > your FT >> > patches sent by you. We have tested both Benjamin and your patches, and >> > found >> > some performance problems. With our QCA9558/988x (using ath10k) based >> > Access >> > points, enabling macvlans on top of bridges result in an performance >> > drop of >> > 30-40%. >> >> the reasons for adding macvlan devices were: >> >> a) the bssid is not local to the bridge / ft_iface already >> b) there are two hostapd instances running on the same bridge / ft_iface >> device >> c) the lowerdev / ft_iface might not be a bridge >> >> The macvlan device is only used for low rate AP-AP-control traffic. >> >> Im my use case, the related lower device is only used for AP-AP-control >> traffic, so that performance problem did not affect me. >> >> Aspects to consider: >> - having a macvlan device enables adding a local mac address also to >> non-bridge lower devices, e.g. ethX or vpntapX. >> - Benjamin's patch does not address the need for marking a mac address >> as local to the bridge >> - With Benjamin's patch [1], the local delivery within hostapd might no >> longer be required as traffic between different hapd instances might be >> covered as well >> >> I'm think about the following solutions >> i) enhance kernel macvlan driver so that it can avoid using promisicous >> mode if lowerdev is a bridge by marking its mac address as local to the >> bridge >> ii) tweak bridge fdb instead of using macvlan thus requiring lowerdev >> (ft_iface) to be a bridge >> iii) use benjamin's patch [1] anyway and maybe avoid the need for >> hostapd internal delivery >> >> Obviously, i) would benefit all other maclvan-on-top-of-bridge users as >> well. >> >> Still, I'm wondering why one would need multiple hostapd processes >> running on an AP? > > Thank you for your answer! > > At least this last question is easy to answer on a Friday evening - we have > one hostapd instance per phy, so its two instances running on a dual band > access point (2.4 and 5 GHz). Creating two hostapd processes in this case is > the standard procedure in OpenWRT. > > Cheers, > Simon > _______________________________________________ > Hostap mailing list > Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap > -- Matteo Croce Ubuntu - Linux For Human Beings perl -e 'for($t=0;;$t++){print chr($t*($t>>8|$t>>13)&255)}' |aplay _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
