On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:46:15PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>
> >>I just personally liked the idea of having a device node in /dev for
> >>every existing hardware wlan card. Like we have device nodes for
> >>other real hardware, too. It felt like a bit of a "unix way"
David S. Miller wrote:
> From: David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:16:17 -0800 (PST)
>
> > character devices are far easier to script. this really sounds like the
> > type of configuration stuff that sysfs was designed for. can we avoid yet
> > another configuration tool th
> It can be in promiscious mode (wardriving).
Just to nitpick:
Promisc implies delivering all data frames from the medium. rfmon is
actually a different link type and delivers management frames (for which
there isn't a clear equivalent in 802.3).
Promisc does not imply disabling normal operatio
Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How would the virtual interfaces look like? That is quite easy to answer.
> They are net_devices, as they transfer data.
> They should probaly _not_ be on top of the ethernet, as 80211 does not
> have very much in common with ethernet. Basically they sha
David Lang wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote:
I think the main advantages of netlink over a character device is its
flexible format, which is easily extendable, and multicast capability,
which can be used to broadcast events and configuration changes. Its
also good to have all th
From: David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:16:17 -0800 (PST)
> character devices are far easier to script. this really sounds like the
> type of configuration stuff that sysfs was designed for. can we avoid yet
> another configuration tool that's required?
netlink is being re
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote:
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
I just personally liked the idea of having a device node in /dev for
every existing hardware wlan card. Like we have device nodes for
other real hardware, too. It felt like a bit of a "unix way" to do
this to me. I don't say thi
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:46:15 +0100
Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>
> >>I just personally liked the idea of having a device node in /dev for
> >>every existing hardware wlan card. Like we have device nodes for
> >>other real hardware, too. It felt like a bit o
Michael Buesch wrote:
How would the virtual interfaces look like? That is quite easy to answer.
They are net_devices, as they transfer data.
They should probaly _not_ be on top of the ethernet, as 80211 does not
have very much in common with ethernet. Basically they share the same
MAC address fo
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 17:12 +0100, Feyd wrote:
> Michael Buesch wrote:
> > The _real_ main point I wanted to make was to _not_ use a net_device for
> > the master device. What else should be used for master device, let it
> > be a device node or a netlink socket, is rather unimportant at
> > this s
Michael Buesch wrote:
The _real_ main point I wanted to make was to _not_ use a net_device for
the master device. What else should be used for master device, let it
be a device node or a netlink socket, is rather unimportant at
this stage.
If the only purpose of the master device was configurat
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
I just personally liked the idea of having a device node in /dev for
every existing hardware wlan card. Like we have device nodes for
other real hardware, too. It felt like a bit of a "unix way" to do
this to me. I don't say this is the way to go.
If a netlink socket is us
Hi Michael,
> > > How would the virtual interfaces look like? That is quite easy to answer.
> > > They are net_devices, as they transfer data.
> > > They should probaly _not_ be on top of the ethernet, as 80211 does not
> > > have very much in common with ethernet. Basically they share the same
>
On Friday 06 January 2006 12:38, you wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> > How would the virtual interfaces look like? That is quite easy to answer.
> > They are net_devices, as they transfer data.
> > They should probaly _not_ be on top of the ethernet, as 80211 does not
> > have very much in common with et
Hi Michael,
> How would the virtual interfaces look like? That is quite easy to answer.
> They are net_devices, as they transfer data.
> They should probaly _not_ be on top of the ethernet, as 80211 does not
> have very much in common with ethernet. Basically they share the same
> MAC address form
> > * We really have no wireless maintainer. I'm just the defacto guy,
> > with no interest in the job. The ideal maintainer knows 802.11 well,
> > uses git, and isn't an asshole with no taste. I'm just the guy who
> > wants to make sure the net driver portion doesn't turn out to be a
> >
16 matches
Mail list logo
