[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: ifconfig(8) - a tale of two states
>> 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,
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.
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.
But unless you want to completely desupport 10base2 and 10base5
interfaces, you need to continue to support bus topologies.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |