On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 17:46 +0200, Alexander Simon wrote: > That seems pretty complex too ... > > I don't really know. As I said, I think I'd be happy with an > implementation that maybe doesn't fully implement everything as long as > it considers the trade-offs. The same questions come up with HT support and 802.11s, as per Javier this is not really well spelled out in the spec. My recommendation is to just support for now the most simple case and let us not entangle ourselves with the complexities of handling trying to merge different setups. So only enable peering up for adhoc or mesh if and only if the observed IE matches our own supported HT caps or target configuration. If a legacy STA tries to peer up with an HT IBSS, this would simply be rejected. We can leave off handling the change in configuration later for userspace, but do not see this as being a requirement for supporting HT for IBSS or Mesh. The simpler the better, so long as we simply respect the spec. Luis -- 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
