From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 21 23:15:04 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD2A16A43D for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:15:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mime@traveller.cz) Received: from ss.eunet.cz (ss.eunet.cz [193.85.228.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F6B43D78 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:14:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mime@traveller.cz) Received: from localhost.i.cz (ss.eunet.cz [193.85.228.13]) by ss.eunet.cz (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j6LNEmPC041385; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:14:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mime@traveller.cz) From: Michal Mertl To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Sam Leffler In-Reply-To: <1121881805.929.38.camel@genius1.i.cz> References: <20050719094905.F15510@fledge.watson.org> <1121771151.764.42.camel@genius1.i.cz> <42DDD710.4030503@errno.com> <1121855884.796.8.camel@genius1.i.cz> <42DE648B.1060402@errno.com> <1121881805.929.38.camel@genius1.i.cz> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:14:45 +0200 Message-Id: <1121987685.61017.31.camel@genius1.i.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Recent fragility with if_wi, 802.11 adhoc/wep, and Tiger X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:15:05 -0000 Michal Mertl wrote: > Sam Leffler wrote: > > Michal Mertl wrote: > > > > > > I run an ath card in hostap mode and several wireless clients connect to > > > it and are on the same IP network. The ping from one client to another > > > is slow yet both ping the AP fine. I think that in this situation the > > > bridging is done by ath (in HAL?) and configured by 'ifconfig apbridge'. > > > > The bridging is done in the net80211 layer, not "in the card". I will > > test, thank you. > > Thanks for the correction. > > And thank you for looking into it. Some new findings: I can confirm that the atheros based client really connects much worse than an IPW based one. When I restart the atheros AP, the ipw card connects immediately after the AP is back but the atheros client either never connects or it will take long time (I didn't wait long enough). It connects immediately after I issue ifconfig down/up on it. More interesting finding that I have is about the bridging issue. I wasn't able to find which debug setting (via dev.ath.0.debug or net.wlan.0.debug) will show me any usefull information. Anyways it now seems to me that I was wrong saying that it works at all. The AP bridges the packets only when there is another IP communication between the AP host and one of the clients. It seems to me that the bridged packets are queued somewhere and sent only when there are some non bridged. Test conditions - I have 192.168.1.1 on the AP, .2 on the IPW notebook and .3 on the atheros client. The settings of ath0 on AP are: "mode 11b mediaopt hostap channel 1 ssid test_ap_xx". The settings on clients are almost the same except there I don't issue any mediaopt. I hope I'm not doing anything extra stupid :-). The nodes are just several centimeters apart from each other and I only have tiny antennas. When the only IP communication is the ping from 192.168.1.2 to .3 (between the clients) I don't get any answer. When I ping at the same time from between any of the clients and the AP it works. When I let the first ping run for several seconds and then start the second one I get all the answers at the same time. This is probably complete nonsense but I think that what I'm experiencing looks as if the bridged packets weren't generating interrupts or something. I've got serial consoles hooked to the machines and am able to sprinkle some debug prints somewhere if required. Michal