Message-ID: <1344265599.4807.2.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20120806_170651_451597_7C344CE3)
Subject: Re: WDS vs. multi-channel operation
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:06:39 +0200
In-Reply-To: <501FDC87.1000204@openwrt.org>
References: <1343655393.4452.13.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
	  <501EA97B.3010703@openwrt.org>
	  <1344187264.5765.4.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
	  (sfid-20120805_192133_648139_FC40F06B) <1344187324.5765.5.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
	 <501FDC87.1000204@openwrt.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 17:02 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:

> >> If you're going to require them to be bound to an AP though, where's the
> >> difference to the current 4-addr AP_VLAN behaviour? It seems with that
> >> you could actually implement a bound-to-AP-WDS entirely in userspace
> >> since there's no requirement to actually go through the auth/assoc
> >> sequence for hostapd to add the station entry?
> > 
> > Oh and if you actually do need WDS-type interfaces, maybe their role
> > should change to be virtual like AP_VLAN-type interfaces?

> The difference between WDS and 4-addr AP_VLAN is that WDS is AP<->AP,
> not AP<->STA. I guess it would be possible to write some code to create
> AP VLANs + station entries for remote APs based on cooked monitor mode
> based discovery or some form of mgmt frame exchange.

I was thinking just pre-configure it as you have to anyway now?

johannes