You write:
> Consider the case of multiple virtual IBSS interfaces
> trying to join the same IBSS.
Well, consider the case that you want to route between
two *different* IBSS networks with a single NIC. This=20
could be really useful and those a nice feature to have.
-- =20
Regards
=20
Joerg
=20
Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? Versuch=
en Sie=B4s mit dem neuen Yahoo! Mail. http://www.yahoo.de/mail
Well, the Unix and those the Linux way is "Give 'em enough rope...".
Sure, things might break if you don't know what you do, but the
same is true when you do "rm -rf /" as root. I really don't see the
point of protecting root from itself.
=20
-- =20
Regards
=20
Joerg
=20
----- Urspr=FCngliche Mail ----
Von: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
An: Joerg Pommnitz <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 27. September 2007, 10:50:38 Uhr
Betreff: Re: [patch 6/7] mac80211: allow only one IBSS interface
[Could you please use reply-to-all and not break threads? thanks]
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 01:08 -0700, Joerg Pommnitz wrote:
> Well, consider the case that you want to route between
> two *different* IBSS networks with a single NIC. This=20
> could be really useful and those a nice feature to have.
Yes, but consider the case where it all breaks because you associate to
the same IBSS. IMHO correctness is more important than "nice features".
It would be possible to fix the issue, by keeping track of the beaconin=
g
etc. in software and having the two IBSS interfaces see each other via
software since they can't in hardware, but I'm not interested in
expending that effort right now.
johannes
Machen Sie Yahoo! zu Ihrer Startseite. Los geht's:=20
http://de.yahoo.com/set
[Could you please use reply-to-all and not break threads? thanks]
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 01:08 -0700, Joerg Pommnitz wrote:
> Well, consider the case that you want to route between
> two *different* IBSS networks with a single NIC. This
> could be really useful and those a nice feature to have.
Yes, but consider the case where it all breaks because you associate to
the same IBSS. IMHO correctness is more important than "nice features".
It would be possible to fix the issue, by keeping track of the beaconing
etc. in software and having the two IBSS interfaces see each other via
software since they can't in hardware, but I'm not interested in
expending that effort right now.
johannes