Re: Setting HT capabilities in net80211
On 13 Mar 2010, at 16:17, Alexander Egorenkov wrote: > I have finally patched net80211 on my system and added HT extended > capabilities support. > > Here are the patches. > > I added a new variable to ieee80211com struct. > It seems that only the lowest 16 bit of ic_htcaps are used, an alternative to > a new variable would be to use the highest 16 bit of ic_htcaps. > > Here is a code snippet from my driver which sets ic_htextcaps: > > ic->ic_htextcaps = IEEE80211_HTCAP_MCSFBACK_UNSOL | > IEEE80211_HTCAP_HTC | > IEEE80211_HTCAP_RDR; > > I also captured an association process with 802.11n AP and it seems the > capabilities were set right. Thanks, I've committed this. -- Rui Paulo ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Choosing CPU for router
On 03/18/10 01:32, Andrew Snow wrote: Jon Otterholm wrote: This machine is going to act as access-router serving ~500 FTTH-customers. About 500Mbit/s and 200kpps. The big issue is Dummynet, around 1000 pipes (2 pipes/customer). That doesn't sound right, 200kpps @ 500Mbps works out to an average packet size of 250 bytes? Am I missing something Maybe he's pushing VoIP... ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Setting HT capabilities in net80211
We also need to set/update/delete these capabilities for nodes, e.g. after a beacon or a (re)association frame is received from a node. I mean the field ni_flags in struct ieee80211_node. And ifconfig support would be nice to have in order to be able to enable/disable these features dynamically. On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Rui Paulo wrote: > > On 13 Mar 2010, at 16:17, Alexander Egorenkov wrote: > > > I have finally patched net80211 on my system and added HT extended > capabilities support. > > > > Here are the patches. > > > > I added a new variable to ieee80211com struct. > > It seems that only the lowest 16 bit of ic_htcaps are used, an > alternative to a new variable would be to use the highest 16 bit of > ic_htcaps. > > > > Here is a code snippet from my driver which sets ic_htextcaps: > > > > ic->ic_htextcaps = IEEE80211_HTCAP_MCSFBACK_UNSOL | > > IEEE80211_HTCAP_HTC | > > IEEE80211_HTCAP_RDR; > > > > I also captured an association process with 802.11n AP and it seems the > capabilities were set right. > > Thanks, I've committed this. > > -- > Rui Paulo > > ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Setting HT capabilities in net80211
On 23 Mar 2010, at 13:23, Alexander Egorenkov wrote: > We also need to set/update/delete these capabilities for nodes, e.g. after a > beacon or > a (re)association frame is received from a node. I mean the field ni_flags in > struct ieee80211_node. And ifconfig support would be nice to have in order to > be able to enable/disable these features dynamically. I'm happy to review and commit patches. -- Rui Paulo ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: kern/143627: [ieee80211] [panic] A bug in ht_send_action_ba_addba causes net80211 to send malformed ADDBA response frames
Synopsis: [ieee80211] [panic] A bug in ht_send_action_ba_addba causes net80211 to send malformed ADDBA response frames State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: rpaulo State-Changed-When: Tue Mar 23 13:36:44 UTC 2010 State-Changed-Why: Fixed with a commit I made last week. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=143627 ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: kern/144323: [ieee80211] A response management frame appears in wireshark captures before the corresponding request management frame in HOSTAP mode
Synopsis: [ieee80211] A response management frame appears in wireshark captures before the corresponding request management frame in HOSTAP mode State-Changed-From-To: open->patched State-Changed-By: rpaulo State-Changed-When: Tue Mar 23 14:31:56 UTC 2010 State-Changed-Why: Fixed in HEAD. Will MFC. Thanks. Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-net->rpaulo Responsible-Changed-By: rpaulo Responsible-Changed-When: Tue Mar 23 14:31:56 UTC 2010 Responsible-Changed-Why: Fixed in HEAD. Will MFC. Thanks. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=144323 ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Choosing CPU for router
Den 2010-03-23 14.12, skrev "Ivan Voras" : > On 03/18/10 01:32, Andrew Snow wrote: >> >> Jon Otterholm wrote: >>> This machine is going to act as access-router serving ~500 >>> FTTH-customers. >>> About 500Mbit/s and 200kpps. The big issue is Dummynet, around 1000 >>> pipes (2 >>> pipes/customer). >> >> That doesn't sound right, 200kpps @ 500Mbps works out to an average >> packet size of 250 bytes? Am I missing something > > Maybe he's pushing VoIP... Today we are pushing ~0,4kpps/Mbit. At the same ratio 500Mbit/s sums up to ~200kpps. //JO ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: kern/144987: [wpi] [panic] injecting packets with wlaninject using Intel 3945ABG wireless card gives kernel panic
Old Synopsis: injecting packets with wlaninject using Intel 3945ABG wireless card gives kernel panic New Synopsis: [wpi] [panic] injecting packets with wlaninject using Intel 3945ABG wireless card gives kernel panic Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net Responsible-Changed-By: linimon Responsible-Changed-When: Tue Mar 23 22:38:38 UTC 2010 Responsible-Changed-Why: Over to maintainer(s). http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=144987 ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is this correct?
On 03/19/10 14:53, Ermal Luçi wrote:
Shouldn't this check be
if (m->m_len> sizeof (struct ip)) {
instead of
if (m->m_len< sizeof (struct ip)) {
in
http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/netipsec/ipsec.c?im=excerpts#L595
You're right (only '>' should be '>=' here, perhaps?).
This change fixed my problem with natted ipsec when
UDP NATT port 4500 sometimes turned into garbage in socket's
security policies. After I applied this fix, ports are correct.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
