On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Kalle Valo<kalle.valo@xxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > There might be another reason - I'm not sure whether all versions of Windows are capable of using an ad-hoc network for Internet connection sharing. So, to bridge the connection from a Linux machine to a Windows one, one might need to use AP mode. -- Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-) -- 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
