Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:38382 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755159Ab2FZS4j (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:56:39 -0400 Message-ID: <1340736988.4484.19.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20120626_205646_237584_29990D0E) Subject: Re: Help tracing NL80211_CMD_AUTHENTICATE as event in IBSS mode From: Johannes Berg To: Antonio Quartulli Cc: Will Hawkins , Will Hawkins , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:56:28 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20120626185533.GA7932@ritirata.org> References: <24f-4fe93400-17-239c5900@2266046> <1340693584.4662.3.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4FE9E201.1010903@opentechinstitute.org> <1340728873.4484.6.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4FE9E6F0.2070909@opentechinstitute.org> <1340730210.4484.11.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20120626185533.GA7932@ritirata.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 20:55 +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote: > @johannes: de-duplication? IBSS/RSN assumes that each node runs an authenticator > and a supplicant. Does this mean that we need exactly two 4-way handshakes? Why > should we have a "winner"? I may misremember, I thought we didn't need two handshakes. But maybe we do, and just throw away one of the PTKs? johannes