[pkg-wpa-devel] Re: Patch: Support for mapping scripts, e.g. guessnet

[Felix Homann]

On Monday 07 August 2006 02:36, Kel Modderman wrote:
> Ok. I think I may have previously misunderstood you. The current behaviour
> is:
>
> If 'id_str' is present (thus the WPA_ID_STR env var) then it is used
> (overridden by wpa-mapping-script-priority). If 'id_str' is not present,
> and a guessnet test is available, the test is used. If neither 'id_str' or
> guessnet tests are available, we fallback to the default =>
> wpa-roam-default-iface or 'default|none'.
>
> Is the above described behaviour correct in your opinion?

Yes, it is correct (but replace "guessnet test" by "mapping script" it's not 
only about guessnet).

In this way we have three possible mapping schemes
1. "internal" only , i. e. mapping by id_str: Don't specify wpa-mapping-script
2. "internal" first, mapping script as fallback if id_str mapping is 
unsuccsesful: specify wpa-mapping-script
3. "external" only: specify wpa-mapping-script and wpa-mapping-script-priority

One could also think of trying the mapping script first and then falling back 
to id_str matching. But I can't imagine a scenario in which this would be 
useful, so I don't think we should support it.

> > > Maybe it should be a case of 'use one mapping method or the other', and
> > > do not allow the possibility to mix and match?
> >
> > No, see above. We would loose the ability of mapping by ssid/bssid when
> > using guessnet.
>
> Ok. I *think* I understand now.
>
> > > Ok, I see your thinking; maybe there should be no hardcoded fallback at
> > > all?
> > >
> > > This way we can add the 'wpa-roam-default-iface' option and document
> > > its usage and purpose. This would mean that a logical interface stanza
> > > must exist for each known network including the fallback logical
> > > interface, and specifying 'wpa-roam-default-iface' would be mandatory
> > > to activate the fallback option.
> >
> > That's a viable solution, too.
>
> wpa-roam-default-iface should be implemented now.

Great!

> Yes, I would like 'none' too, but this still may cause disruption.
>
> Maybe for a release or two, we should check if the user has a 'default'
> interface setup first and use it. At the same time, document the usage of
> wpa-roam-default-iface and 'none' while deprecating the usage of
> the 'default' interface, with a _big_fat_warning_ that it will be removed
> soon.
>
> Comments on that approach?

I like it. Let's do it that way!

Kind regards,

Felix