Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 12:04:52 +0930 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> Cc: brooks@one-eyed-alien.net, chris@masto.com, jhay@icomtek.csir.co.za, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man4 wi.4 Message-ID: <20020508120452.G10930@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <20020506.233735.118306874.imp@village.org> References: <20020506.211945.111478471.imp@village.org> <20020506222616.B1977@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <20020507145834.P63106@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020506.233735.118306874.imp@village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, 6 May 2002 at 23:37:35 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20020507145834.P63106@wantadilla.lemis.com> > "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.org> writes: >> On Monday, 6 May 2002 at 22:26:17 -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 09:19:45PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: >>>> In message: <20020507115643.N75198@wantadilla.lemis.com> >>>>> Interesting question. You only need to create an IBSS once per IBSS >>>>> network. I now have definitive proof that the station which creates >>>>> the IBSS doesn't do very much: I've taken that station out of the net, >>>>> and the other two machines can still talk to each other. But I can >>>>> see issues when more than one station creates the IBSS: the net could >>>>> partition itself into two different IBSSs, so I suspect we should keep >>>>> the distinction, though the term "master" seems less appropriate. >>>> >>>> Yes, but you need to keep recreating it from time to time, as these >>>> things time out. "master" will be there until you convince OpenBSD to >>>> change, so quit harping on that. >>> >>> My intented implementation is that adhoc will mean ibss-master in >>> 5.0. >> >> I think this would be *really* confusing. I can see people setting up >> ad-hoc interfaces on different releases with identical commands, and >> wondering why they can't interoperate. If we change adhoc, I think we >> should get rid of it altogether, not change the meaning. > > You just totally contradicted what you said in email yesterday where > you approved of this idea. That was before I realised that it was already in use. I thought this was something new that you were planning to implement that way. > The reason that we want to harmonize what ad-hoc means in current is > that it means different things to different drivers in -stable right > now. For lucent cards, that have the old firmware, and many prism2 > cards it means "demo ad-hoc mode". For lucent cards with new > firmware and some prism and symbol cards, it means "ibss mode". And > for all cisco cards (supported by the an driver), it means "ibss > mode". It is a horrible confusion of rats nets of differing > meanings, none of which seem to make sense (and I may have gotten at > least one of them wrong). Having it be an alias for "ibss-master" > in current is the only sane thing to do. By no means. There are plenty of sane things to do. Maybe splitting into "ibss" and "create-ibss" would be better, for example. >>> If there are devices out there that are so totally broken that they >>> screw things up when they are allowed to create an IBSS and someone >>> else has done it first, we'll deal with the problem then. >> >> I don't think that's the issue. I've been using IBSS for some time, >> and once I knew what I was doing, I had no problems. > > You must not be using symbol cards then, because it is an issue with > them. The wi driver in stable does support symbol cards in ibss mode, > but doesn't support them creating an ibss network when they need to. Hmm. No, I'm using Orinocos. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020508120452.G10930>