Re: virtual wireless interfaces / WDS

Just to make things a bit worse, when running a system with 2 wireless 
cards and the same ssid I've seen the same client associated on both 
units for a period of time, probably as a result of the client moving 
or rebooting and the API will need to take this into account.

On Saturday, Apr 19, 2003, at 16:42 US/Pacific, M. Warner Losh wrote:

> In message: <[email protected]>
>             David Young <[email protected]> writes:
> : > As already stated, unique MACs would need to get a consistent sta#.
> :
> :   Right. I think it is important to reach some consensus on how to 
> solve
> :   this problem before programming begins. Here is my proposal.
> :
> :   1 Let an operator or a daemon pre-create a sta with or without
> :     a STA's MAC pre-assigned.
> :
> :   2 Give each 802.11 device (e.g., wi) a flag that permits/forbids
> :     creating additional stas on demand.
> :
> :   3 Preserve the (MAC, unit number) relationship for every 
> pre-created sta
> :     forever.
> :
> :   4 For a sta that is created on demand, only preserve the (MAC, unit
> :     number) relationship for some user-settable time-out period. Let
> :     two of the time-out periods be 0 and infinity.
> :
> :   5 Let a flag in the 802.11 device (e.g., wi) tell whether STA
> :     (dis)association is indicated by adding/deleting a sta or by 
> twiddling
> :     a sta's media status.
>
> I don't think we can rely on staN <-> MAC mapping.  It would be better
> to provide the MAC to staN mapping as a filter.  I'm not convinced
> that having consistant staN is worth the hassle that it is going to
> cause you to get it implemented.  In the end, you'd need to have these
> mapping on some stable storage.
>
> However, having said that, If you want to deal with all this hair, I
> won't object.  It does mean that you have to have the sta's configured
> before you can start the sta daemon.  This isn't that different from
> the limits that we have now that you have to configure the wiN
> interface before stations can associate.
>
> Is there an upper limit on the number of sta that can be in a given
> system?  If not, then some ***hole user can take down your hostap by
> randomizing the MAC address on the packets it sends out ot associate.
> In a busy cafe, this can really suck :-(.  You'd also want some way to
> say 'Don't create more than N sta's' without having to create sta0 to
> staN-1 to accomplish that.
>
> Warner
> --
> *bsd wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/>
> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/bsd-wireless/
>
--
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, 
and wrong."
- Henry Louis Mencken

--
*bsd wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/>
[un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/bsd-wireless/