From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 26 11:42:16 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6440516A4CE for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:42:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from acampi.inet.it (acampi.inet.it [213.92.1.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1112843D41 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:42:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andrea@acampi.inet.it) Received: by acampi.inet.it (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 489A215534; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:41:57 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:41:57 +0200 From: Andrea Campi To: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <20040626114156.GA88328@webcom.it> References: <20040625171050.GA83855@webcom.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PPPoE on Atheros in hostap mode X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:42:16 -0000 [please keep me Cc'd as I'm not currently subscribed] On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:00:16AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > So, questions: am I doing anything wrong? Is this supposed to work? Is > > ath0 somehow mangling the data it sends to netgraph? > > I'd be willing to put some effort in this if it's something fixable, I > > just need pointers. > > It looks like the atheros driver is not returning > any ethernet header information. > > The MAC address is important for PPPoE. Any pointer on how to go about fixing it: what to look for, or even a driver to take as a model? I haven't had time yet to give the code more than a quick glance. From what I gathered looking around it seems someone is using PPPoE over at least wi, so this issue is probably in ath only, not in the generic 802.11 layer, right? > BTW. > tcpdump is the best way to look at the transfer as it can decode the > packets. Yes, and that was the first tool I used; however, I wanted to give the minimum amount of information sufficient to plainly see there IS some issue. Bye, Andrea -- I believe the technical term is "Oops!"