Open tcatm opened 8 years ago
translation from irc-discussion with tcatm: "it probably is best to duplicate the macvlan for br-client on all client interfaces. lateron uradvd may be startet on these"
Do we really need the macvlan? I don't see any reason to have interface-specific MAC addresses on client interfaces, so we could just set the MAC address of all client interfaces to the local-node address.
macvlan is not strictly required. If we have other means to ensure the anycast MAC works on these interfaces that's fine. I don't know if this works with wifi ap interfaces on Ralink.
Maybe its a good idea to reduce the use of virtual interfaces like macvlan if possible as they can cause errors as described in #680 . The crash is causes by platform independent code and can potentially happen on any device.
AP mode wifi is no problem, as such a MAC could as well lie behind a bridge, so the WLAN adapter can never filter any packets towards the master.
after some more discussion on irc with tcat we seem to have reached the following concept:
@NeoRaider do we still need this now that your macvlan/veth-work is merged? l3roamd still needs work to detect macs on bridges but I consider this a missing feature in l3roamd instead of wanting to shape the environment around l3roamd.
We don't need it, but it is still something we might want to consider in the future.
@NeoRaider Are we still considering this in any way?
@mweinelt I really don't know. It might be something to experiment on in the future, but I don't have any concrete plans regarding this matter.
We'd like to remove br-client and also change the local-node feature a little: