Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*RFC\:\s+Linux\s+wireless\s+extensions\s+and\s+WPA\s+support\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: rzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:34:55 -0700
I started working on WPA extension for the Linux wireless extensions based on our earlier discussion. This patch file for V16 shows my current work version. It is not yet ready to be merged into any
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00141.html (18,987 bytes)

2. Re: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: erbert@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:26:59 -0700
Thanks a lot for that, Jouni ! Actually, I don't like the extension of SIOC*IWENCODE. This ioctl is already messy/complex enough as it is, and I think we would benefit greatly in separating the two c
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00184.html (14,126 bytes)

3. RE: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: atiev <vkondra@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:36:25 +0300
-- -- I wonder how this definition let you differentiate between the unicast cipher and the group cipher? Moreover there is two information that are needed 1) the authentication model, which is PSK
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00189.html (14,707 bytes)

4. Re: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: Luethi <rl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:58:12 -0700
Yes : PAIRWISE vs. GROUP. Those things are in Jouni's original proposal, and I don't intend to drop them. I quoted only a small snipset, to clarify, please refer to his e-mail to get the full picture
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00202.html (10,541 bytes)

5. Re: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:45:46 -0700
OK. Yes, there are other parameters that may be useful at some point. Actually, IEEE 802.11 specifies this list as parameters to MLME-SCAN.request and I changed struct iw_scan_req to include all the
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00228.html (24,093 bytes)

6. RE: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: atiev <vkondra@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 09:23:23 +0300
Hi Jouni Thinking about access point we need a way to set more than one cipher suite for the pairwise cipher list (for example mixed mode, which have both TKIP and CCMP users. Another aspect is an AP
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00231.html (25,167 bytes)

7. Re: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:11:34 -0700
These both can use the generic IE mechanism (SIOCSIWGENIE) to configure whatever mode is needed. I'm more used to doing the policy decision in user space (e.g., validating WPA/RSN IE in AssocReq), so
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00330.html (10,845 bytes)

8. RE: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: xxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:56:03 +0300
This depend where the AP implementation is as well as the management is handled -- who will send the association failure or success, will you divide the verification of the association between user
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00342.html (14,729 bytes)

9. Re: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: nut@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:50:58 -0700
You missed the other part of the API : +/* SIOCSIWAUTH/SIOCGIWAUTH parameters (0 .. 4095) + * (IW_AUTH_INDEX mask in struct iw_param flags; this is the index of the + * parameter that is being set/ge
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00364.html (11,036 bytes)

10. RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: Jouni Malinen <jkmaline@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:34:55 -0700
I started working on WPA extension for the Linux wireless extensions based on our earlier discussion. This patch file for V16 shows my current work version. It is not yet ready to be merged into any
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01025.html (18,987 bytes)

11. Re: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: Jean Tourrilhes <jt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:26:59 -0700
Thanks a lot for that, Jouni ! Actually, I don't like the extension of SIOC*IWENCODE. This ioctl is already messy/complex enough as it is, and I think we would benefit greatly in separating the two c
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01068.html (14,224 bytes)

12. RE: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: "Andonieh, Joe" <joe.andonieh@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:36:25 +0300
-- -- -- I wonder how this definition let you differentiate between the unicast cipher and the group cipher? Moreover there is two information that are needed 1) the authentication model, which is P
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01073.html (14,722 bytes)

13. Re: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: Jean Tourrilhes <jt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:58:12 -0700
Yes : PAIRWISE vs. GROUP. Those things are in Jouni's original proposal, and I don't intend to drop them. I quoted only a small snipset, to clarify, please refer to his e-mail to get the full picture
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01086.html (10,671 bytes)

14. Re: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: Jouni Malinen <jkmaline@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:45:46 -0700
OK. Yes, there are other parameters that may be useful at some point. Actually, IEEE 802.11 specifies this list as parameters to MLME-SCAN.request and I changed struct iw_scan_req to include all the
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01112.html (24,183 bytes)

15. RE: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: "Andonieh, Joe" <joe.andonieh@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 09:23:23 +0300
Hi Jouni Thinking about access point we need a way to set more than one cipher suite for the pairwise cipher list (for example mixed mode, which have both TKIP and CCMP users. Another aspect is an AP
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01115.html (25,182 bytes)

16. Re: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: Jouni Malinen <jkmaline@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:11:34 -0700
These both can use the generic IE mechanism (SIOCSIWGENIE) to configure whatever mode is needed. I'm more used to doing the policy decision in user space (e.g., validating WPA/RSN IE in AssocReq), so
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01214.html (10,937 bytes)

17. RE: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: "Andonieh, Joe" <joe.andonieh@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:56:03 +0300
configure This depend where the AP implementation is as well as the management is handled -- who will send the association failure or success, will you divide the verification of the association bet
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01226.html (14,744 bytes)

18. Re: RFC: Linux wireless extensions and WPA support (score: 1)
Author: Jean Tourrilhes <jt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:50:58 -0700
You missed the other part of the API : +/* SIOCSIWAUTH/SIOCGIWAUTH parameters (0 .. 4095) + * (IW_AUTH_INDEX mask in struct iw_param flags; this is the index of the + * parameter that is being set/ge
/archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01248.html (11,166 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu