Return-path: Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]:45931 "EHLO mail-ie0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759039AbaGCPKi (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jul 2014 11:10:38 -0400 Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id at20so298863iec.32 for ; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 11:10:34 -0400 From: Bob Copeland To: Yeoh Chun-Yeow Cc: "devel@lists.open80211s.org" , Johannes Berg , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mac80211: mesh_plink: handle confirm frames with new plid Message-ID: <20140703151034.GA10238@localhost> (sfid-20140703_171043_768398_1B5C089E) References: <1403987726-17576-1-git-send-email-me@bobcopeland.com> <20140628205414.GA17825@localhost> <20140703142837.GA11380@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20140703142837.GA11380@localhost> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:28:37AM -0400, Bob Copeland wrote: > > What is the consequence if we don't handle this case? Is the peer > > going to do the re-auth again? > > > > Regards, > > Chun-Yeow > > It shouldn't be a big problem -- looking at 802.11-2012 figure 13-2: Actually, thinking about it more, a worse case is if B reaches ESTAB and then A reboots. Now, A sends an Open, gets back a Confirm that A will ignore (due to no plid). A will still timeout and send a Close frame to restart everything, but we would have to wait quite a while to re-establish the peering. -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com