> Since the specification doesn't say explicitly that a bSTA trying to associate > on a fronthaul-only BSS should be rejected, I think the easiest is to remove > this check again. Missed it as well. I think a bSTA trying to associate on a "fronthaul-only" BSS is a nominal case, so this check should indeed be removed as there is no reason to reject the bSTA. However, we may have consider the case where the device has only fronthaul BSSes, no backhaul BSS at all. I can't find a way in the Multi-AP specifications for a MAP Controller to provide a MAP Agent with the backhaul credentials, while not actually configuring a backhaul BSS at all. If that's correct, in theory, we could have a situation where there are one or more frounthaul BSSes configured (i.e., multi_ap=2) but no "multi_ap_backhaul_*" properties configured (cause the device has no mean to know them). When one of these BSSes with multi_ap=2 receives a WPS M1 from a "bSTA", it does not know the backhaul BSS credentials, so what credentials does it provide? Providing the credentials of the fronthaul BSS would be wrong per the MAP specs, so maybe rejecting it with an error would be best. What do you think? -marianna _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
