On 8/13/07, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 13:58 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > > > Isn't the removal of management interface a bit premature? I didn't > > see any proposal how to move management packets to the application > > level? If not I would prefer eapol packets be treated on management > > path. No data should be received on data interface till security > > negotiation is done. > > Have you read the patch or are you just ranting? I'm guessing the > latter? The patch didn't remove the management interface at all. > I think it was a polite query I've made, don't see any reason to use this language. If you precept it otherwise I apologize it wasn't my intention. > Besides, what point is there in not allowing EAPOL packets through? On the contrary what I'm saying that EAPOL packets are the only data packets that should go up until handshake is done. They > are fundamentally data packets so they belong onto the AP mode ethernet They have management meaning. So it was appropriate to route them through management interface rather then from data interface. > framed device, and they won't be interpreted by any other application. > You'll have to come up with better reasons than "I prefer" blabla. > Tomas > johannes > > - 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
