Re: use of radiotap bit 14?

Johannes Berg <[email protected]> Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:13:17 +0200

Newsgroups	org.netbsd.radiotap
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

> > My problem with #2 right now is that you and I are acting as stronger
> > advocates for the folks who adopted conflicting radiotap numbers than
> > they themselves are.  Meanwhile, v0 has some momentum: FreeBSD has
> > introduced useful new fields, FreeBSD and NetBSD are in agreement,
> > and there are NO interpreters in tcpdump or in wireshark for any field
> > past 15.  Let's stick with v0 until somebody objects.
> 
> Ok. I just need a bunch of fields in the Linux code for injection
> purposes and am actually developing userspace code to parse/create
> these. Also, here I am actually using bit 14/15/16/17 as RX/TX flags,
> RTS/DATA retries. It would help much if we could go forward with hosting
> the radiotap header "on neutral ground" and standardise these fields, no
> matter how.
> 
> > I propose to add two new presence bits, 29 and 30.  Let them both reset
> > the bitmap index to 0.  That is, the bits in following next 32-bit
> > presence word are interpreted as bits in 0..31, not n..31+n.  We must
> > use both of these bits in conjunction with the extension bit, bit 31,
> > or else they will have no effect.

Ping? Any news on this? Proper 11w implementation in Linux may require
Linux-specific fields to specify which interface a frame belongs to (ie.
which interface the code should use to look up keys etc.)

johannes

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 836 B)