Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:46356 "EHLO mail-qy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752114Ab1ITWjk convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:39:40 -0400 Received: by qyk30 with SMTP id 30so4437634qyk.19 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:39:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4E790F13.4070609@openwrt.org> 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> <4E78DF6F.3060304@openwrt.org> <4E78EA05.6000005@openwrt.org> <4E78FFEB.1090301@openwrt.org> <4E790F13.4070609@openwrt.org> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:39:20 -0700 Message-ID: (sfid-20110921_003943_963687_E8104FBD) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mac80211: Add HT operation modes for IBSS To: Felix Fietkau Cc: Johannes Berg , Javier Cardona , Alexander Simon , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2011-09-20 11:52 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez >>  wrote: >>> >>>  On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Felix Fietkau  wrote: >>>> >>>>  This is not really an IBSS specific issue. It applies to WDS or monitor >>>> mode >>>>  as well. >>> >>>  Excellent point! >>> >>>>  If we want to properly enforce Annex J channel pairs, this needs to >>>>  be moved to cfg80211. >>> >>>  This does not still address the issue of one peer finding out it >>>  cannot deal with an HT40 pair and correcting the topology and >>>  propagating this out. Not yet sure if for 802.11ac we'll need >>>  something similar but its worth considering. >> >> Sorry I meant section 11.14.3.2 which deals with neighboring BSSes >> from the scan list, the annex J stuff would still need to be done by >> all the initial radiators too though for a primary. > > If we need to handle this properly in the initial patch, then this can > probably only be done in a simple way by not supporting HT40 yet. Right, sorry I should have clarified my concern was the scanning aspect, not annex J. In this case I still do believe we can still support HT40 but the scan stuff can go out to iw, or this may be a good use case for stuffing some stuff into a shared library between iw / hostapd. The Mesh stuff will hopefully eventually be merged into hostapd, but for adhoc it seems overkill. I was actually more concerned about the mismatch on configuration rather than the scanning, but I think Annex J helps with this, by fixating primaries apart from each other. > It should still support joining an IBSS with a different HT opmode though. So long as the scan/check is done, sure. Luis