Jiri Benc wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:14:41 +0200, Jiri Benc wrote: >> That's true. Still, couldn't we find a better solution? > > I have a new idea. Maybe it will turn out to have fatal design or > implementation problems, but anyway. > > First, I thought how all of this would be easier if we have a native > 802.11 (virtual) interfaces and don't translate from Ethernet. Then I > realized it wouldn't help us much - we want to specify some parameters > for each frame, so we'd have to use some encapsulation anyway to allow > radiotap headers. Hm, wait a moment - why we cannot use the > encapsulation we currently have? That means, why can't we encapsulate > raw 802.11 frames in Ethernet frames? > > Before you reject the whole idea, please think a moment about it. I don't reject it at all, it's fine for injection. But for any nontrivial use, you need to capture RX and not blindly inject, and so you have a monitor mode interface up anyway. The footprint in the political networking space is less if it just goes in as a monitor mode TX action. -Andy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
