Return-path: Received: from nbd.name ([46.4.11.11]:42323 "EHLO nbd.name" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751295Ab1ITSqK (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:46:10 -0400 Message-ID: <4E78DF6F.3060304@openwrt.org> (sfid-20110920_204617_904794_7F27560F) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:46:07 +0200 From: Felix Fietkau MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" CC: Johannes Berg , Javier Cardona , Alexander Simon , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mac80211: Add HT operation modes for IBSS References: <35635039ce7d4a79dc62b19d51ccf0d5d4838112.1316297595.git.an.alexsimon@googlemail.com> <1316437459.5995.29.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <36569806.Rgjanm0GiI@alex-1> <1316521312.3953.27.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4E78D990.3090601@openwrt.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2011-09-20 8:38 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> On 2011-09-20 8:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Johannes Berg >>> 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. >> >> I disagree. That'll make it useless for real deployments, which are often a >> mix of HT and non-HT devices. > > I'm not saying to not do it at all, I'm saying to start off with basic > support *first* and *later* worry about the mixing. Simply sticking with the configured HT opmode is also simple, but it's a lot more practical. - Felix