Jouni Malinen <j@xxxxx> writes: >> Also deliberately breaking 802.11 specification sounds very wrong to me. >> We can, and should, aim higher than that. > > Well, breaking specifications may have to be done in some cases ;-), but > this particular feature is not really such a case. Yes, you are correct (as usual). The specification is not perfect, far from it :) > However, I do understand the desire to be able to use some kind of AP > mode even if it is known to be broken for some cases. Actually what are the reasons why an user would prefer AP mode over Ad-Hoc mode, if he doesn't care about power save? Better coverage between clients and better encryption, but that's it. Right? -- Kalle Valo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
