Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost> writes: >>> Is this inconsistent? I don't know enough about 802.11, but it >>> seems plausible, at least, to me that the radio could be on (media >>> active) without the interface having an SSID [...] > >> With ethernet, it's not really that interesting if we are up but have >> no peer, and it's not complicated. [...] > >> Another point is that "link state" only really conceptually applies >> to a technology where there is a single peer and there is a notion of >> having a PHY connection to it. > > How does this apply to 10base2 or 10base5? What is the "single peer" > when what you have is a connection to a shared cable? If anything, A fair point. > 802.11 is in that respect closer to 10base5 than to 10baseT, in that > it's fundamentally a shared medium. It's just that the layers above > the fundamental physical layer are very, very different. 802.11 is multiple things, and IBSS is basically like 10base5/10base2. With BSS mode, you associate with an AP which is basically like plugging into a hub/switch. > The relevance here, I think is that if you're going to try to keep > 802.11 and Ethernet to a common framework, it needs to handle Ethernet > as well as 802.11, and Ethernet is a peculiar beast nowadays - it is > conceptually a shared medium, but recent implementations of it are > fundamentally interconnected-star topologies rather than bus > topologies, with a bus-topology fiction built atop the star reality. True. > But unless you want to completely desupport 10base2 and 10base5 > interfaces, you need to continue to support bus topologies. I think what you said is consistent with my NA proposal. It may be that with 10base2, "UP" means "cable is terminated properly". Or perhaps it's NA.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature