On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Felix Fietkau <nbd@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2010-01-30 5:22 PM, Greg Oliver wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Johannes Berg >> <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 10:14 -0600, Greg Oliver wrote: >>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Johannes Berg >>>> <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> > I suggest you go public with your reply so you can be flamed and taught >>>> > wrong appropriately. >>>> >>>> Sorry - this gmail inefficiency sometimes gets me... >>>> >>>> BUT, please enlighten me when any of the 3 use cases would be >>>> beneficial to anyone not trying to (or "inefficiently migrating") hack >>>> into a network would occur. >>> >>> I don't think I can parse that. In any case, a possible use case would >>> for instance be a protected company network, along with an unprotected, >>> internet-only guest network. >> Hmmm, I would put the odds at that happening about 100,000:1 (if not more) >> >> Yes, I know it is feasible, but HIGHLY unlikely. > Actually, with non-mac80211 drivers people have been deploying setups > like this for years. Now that this functionality is starting to > stabilize in mac80211, people are starting to use it there as well. > > What you call 'HIGHLY unlikely' is actually very common ;) > > - Felix > Hmmm.. Are there that many network engineers that I clean the mess up for? I think they would not be visiting here... Please give me an example of "hiding" anything.. That just makes it all more useless.. Seriously real world examples that only a single ssid would benefit from.. I can think of no reason you would not EVER use a unique name.... -Greg -- 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
