On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 12:53 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2011-06-01 6:17 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 22:22 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > >> On 2011-05-31 10:06 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 21:39 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > >> >> On 2011-05-31 9:32 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> >> > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 21:16 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > >> >> >> When a STA entry is created too early, a lot of essential information > >> >> >> required for rate control is missing. > >> >> > > >> >> > I don't understand how you can rely on beacons for WDS. > >> >> You usually set up WDS links between APs on the same channel, each > >> >> running both a normal AP vif and a WDS vif. The remote AP's beacons are > >> >> then used to detect the capabilities of the peer. > >> > > >> > I don't think we can rely on "usually" unless we also enforce that > >> > somehow. Otherwise this link will basically be dead. There's nothing > >> > that requires you to add WDS to an AP interface only after all. > >> I don't think using WDS without APs makes any sense. Since WDS alone > >> does not use beacons or probe requests, there's nothing else that would > >> ensure that rate information, HT capabilities, etc. get exchanged. > > > > I just don't like the fact that you can create a non-functional WDS > > interface by adding it when there's no AP interface. > Actually, I just noticed that ieee80211_assign_perm_addr forces you to > use the MAC address of an existing AP interface for a WDS interface, > same as for an AP VLAN interface. So the requirement to also have an AP > mode interface is not new. No, it just uses that since it can use the same address -- there's no requirement anywhere that the AP must exist. 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
