6:48 a.m.
HI all
I'm playing with iwd. Looking at iwmon I can see virtual device
discovered by iwd when they are created.
iw phy phy0 interface add wlan1 __ap
iwctl still report wlan0
I was able to create wifi connection and access point mode using
wpa_supplicant and NetworkManager. My idea
is was experimenting iwd
iwctl device list still report only wlan1. The idea behind is to
control ap+sta interface. Any feedback?
Michael
1:45 a.m.
Hi Michael,
On 10/7/21 2:48 PM, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi wrote:
HI all
I'm playing with iwd. Looking at iwmon I can see virtual device
discovered by iwd when they are created.
iw phy phy0 interface add wlan1 __ap
iwctl still report wlan0
Right. Since most people want to use iwd + hostapd for such tethering cases, we
made the decision to simply ignore any new devices created outside iwd after a
wiphy has been initialized.
You can get around this by creating the sta + ap devices first, then starting
iwd. You'll need to set UseDefaultInterface=true in /etc/iwd/main.conf. See
'man 5 iwd.config' for more details.
I was able to create wifi connection and access point mode using
wpa_supplicant and NetworkManager. My idea
is was experimenting iwd
iwctl device list still report only wlan1. The idea behind is to
control ap+sta interface. Any feedback?
Teaching iwd to create STA + AP interfaces when it initializes an adapter is on
the TODO list. We already do this with P2P, but not STA + AP. This should be
fairly easy to do, but we have been busy with other tasks. Patches are always
welcome!
Our (preliminary) thinking on this was to add a main.conf entry that tells iwd
how it should manage wiphys by default. Something like: "sta-only",
"sta+p2p",
"sta+ap". Based on the configured setting, iwd would then create the interfaces
automagically (assuming hardware/driver supports it, falling back to "sta-only"
if not).
Regards,
-Denis
2:23 a.m.
Hi
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 4:58 PM Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 10/7/21 2:48 PM, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi wrote:
> HI all
>
> I'm playing with iwd. Looking at iwmon I can see virtual device
> discovered by iwd when they are created.
>
> iw phy phy0 interface add wlan1 __ap
>
> iwctl still report wlan0
>
Right. Since most people want to use iwd + hostapd for such tethering cases, we
made the decision to simply ignore any new devices created outside iwd after a
wiphy has been initialized.
Ok, I think that iwd as interface is more easy to use then hostapd and having
one service is much more easy to work with.
You can get around this by creating the sta + ap devices first, then starting
iwd. You'll need to set UseDefaultInterface=true in /etc/iwd/main.conf. See
'man 5 iwd.config' for more details.
Very good
> I was able to create wifi connection and access point mode using
> wpa_supplicant and NetworkManager. My idea
> is was experimenting iwd
>
> iwctl device list still report only wlan1. The idea behind is to
> control ap+sta interface. Any feedback?
>
Teaching iwd to create STA + AP interfaces when it initializes an adapter is on
the TODO list. We already do this with P2P, but not STA + AP. This should be
fairly easy to do, but we have been busy with other tasks. Patches are always
welcome!
Our (preliminary) thinking on this was to add a main.conf entry that tells iwd
how it should manage wiphys by default. Something like: "sta-only",
"sta+p2p",
"sta+ap". Based on the configured setting, iwd would then create the
interfaces
I think that this the best is to extend the mode and add Mode = sta+ap
automagically (assuming hardware/driver supports it, falling back to
"sta-only"
if not).
Some hardware has the limitation to use only one channel
in this configuration. The idea is to able to decide to go on not go
in this configuration using dbus
Michael
Regards,
-Denis
--
Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer
M. +39 347 913 2170
michael(a)amarulasolutions.com
__________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV
Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL
T. +31 (0)85 111 9172
info(a)amarulasolutions.com
www.amarulasolutions.com
2:19 a.m.
Hi Michael,
> automagically (assuming hardware/driver supports it, falling
back to "sta-only"
> if not).
Some hardware has the limitation to use only one channel
in this configuration. The idea is to able to decide to go on not go
in this configuration using dbus
I haven't looked into this in much detail. I know nl80211 APIs do provide some
information as to what interface combinations the hardware supports. Not sure
if/how it tells userspace about channel limitations. If you know more, please
share.
But yes, we probably would need to expose some of this info via D-Bus or teach
AccessPoint.Start/StartProfile to only use the active STA channel if the
hardware has such limitations.
Regards,
-Denis
2:50 a.m.
Hi Michael,
> Our (preliminary) thinking on this was to add a main.conf entry
that tells iwd
> how it should manage wiphys by default. Something like: "sta-only",
"sta+p2p",
> "sta+ap". Based on the configured setting, iwd would then create the
interfaces
I think that this the best is to extend the mode and add Mode = sta+ap
Oh, and I guess you meant extending net.connman.iwd.Device.Mode. That can't
really be done since Device maps to a netdev. The choice of STA+AP vs STA-only
would be on the wiphy level (net.connman.iwd.Adapter).
Regards,
-Denis
3:40 a.m.
Hi
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 5:52 PM Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Michael,
>> Our (preliminary) thinking on this was to add a main.conf entry that tells iwd
>> how it should manage wiphys by default. Something like: "sta-only",
"sta+p2p",
>> "sta+ap". Based on the configured setting, iwd would then create the
interfaces
>
> I think that this the best is to extend the mode and add Mode = sta+ap
>
Oh, and I guess you meant extending net.connman.iwd.Device.Mode. That can't
really be done since Device maps to a netdev. The choice of STA+AP vs STA-only
would be on the wiphy level (net.connman.iwd.Adapter).
Ok
Anyway I have tested but it seems that it does not work for me.
Virtual node are there
but iwd pick one of them and they are not destroyed as you said
Michael
Regards,
-Denis
--
Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer
M. +39 347 913 2170
michael(a)amarulasolutions.com
__________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV
Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL
T. +31 (0)85 111 9172
info(a)amarulasolutions.com
www.amarulasolutions.com
5:25 a.m.
Hi Michael,
Anyway I have tested but it seems that it does not work for me.
Virtual node are there
but iwd pick one of them and they are not destroyed as you said
Okay, should be fixed now upstream with commit: a0017405064c ("manager:
Initialize all default interfaces")
I'm not sure what you mean by 'they are not destroyed' though?
Regards,
-Denis
5:53 a.m.
HI
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 8:25 PM Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Michael,
> Anyway I have tested but it seems that it does not work for me.
> Virtual node are there
> but iwd pick one of them and they are not destroyed as you said
>
Okay, should be fixed now upstream with commit: a0017405064c ("manager:
Initialize all default interfaces")
I'm not sure what you mean by 'they are not destroyed' though?
destroy -> reinitialize
You are correct. I miss to rebase on newer version
Michael
Regards,
-Denis
--
Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer
M. +39 347 913 2170
michael(a)amarulasolutions.com
__________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV
Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL
T. +31 (0)85 111 9172
info(a)amarulasolutions.com
www.amarulasolutions.com
345
days inactive
346
days old
7 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Denis Kenzior -
Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi