Return-path: Received: from mail-gg0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:57501 "EHLO mail-gg0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752759Ab2HNTNZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:13:25 -0400 Received: by ggdk6 with SMTP id k6so847642ggd.19 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:13:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <773DB8A82AB6A046AE0195C68612A3190138F360@sbs2003.acksys.local> References: <773DB8A82AB6A046AE0195C68612A3190138F360@sbs2003.acksys.local> From: Thomas Pedersen Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:13:03 -0700 Message-ID: (sfid-20120814_211328_788803_E42C9EBA) Subject: Re: Mesh addressing issue To: Cedric VONCKEN Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Cedric, On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Cedric VONCKEN wrote: > I think I found an issue in mesh addressing. > I used the compat-2012-06-14. > > My network topology for the test is : > ----------------- ------------------- Wired LAN ----------------- > |MP1 | |MP2 |------------------| Computer | > |192.168.4.1| |192.168.4.253| |192.168.4.90 | > ----------------- ------------------- --------------- > > The MP1 is not bridged with any wired interface (The ip address is set directly on WLAN0 interface) > The MP2 is bridged with eth0 to offer link with a wired network (My computer is connected with the wired network). > > If I try to ping from Computer to MP1. > The ICMP request sent on WiFi (from MP2 to MP1) is a broadcast frame using a strange address format (3 address in 802.11 header + 1 address in mesh extension) . > The ICMP reply sent on wifi (from MP1 to MP2) is unicast frame using 6 addresses format. > > Why the ICMP request is sent with address 1 set to broadcast (It was not the case for older compat-2011-08-25)? > > If in MP1 I move the WLAN0 to a bridge with brctl (with no other interface), ICMP request are still sent with broadcast, > But > If I change the mac address of bridge interface, the ICMP request is now sent in unicast format (using the 6 addresses formats) ! Based on the information you've provided, none of this immediately sounds wrong. Can you please link to a capture file we can investigate? Thanks, Thomas