From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Luis Carlos Cobo <luisca@cozybit.com>
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
Javier Cardona <javier@cozybit.com>
Subject: mesh beaconing questions
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:07:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1204034825.13162.233.camel@johannes.berg> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1845 bytes --]
Hi,
The Draft states that beacons may be sent either as defined for IBSS or
as defined for infrastructure mode.
I have a few questions, some of which are related to our implementation
and others which are related to the Draft.
1. Are we going to let drivers choose which mode to use? Should they
indicate that somehow so userspace knows? Or are we going to make this
configurable? Can all hardware support both modes? (the last question
probably ties in with the next)
2. The Draft states to use either procedures 11.1.2.2 (IBSS) or 11.1.2.1
(infrastructure). It is easy to "port" 11.1.2.1 to mesh, but 11.1.2.2
reads like this:
--- >% ---
[...]
At each TBTT, the STA shall:
[...]
(d) Cancel the remaining random delay and the pending beacon
transmission, if a beacon arrives from the IBSS of which the STA is
a member before the random delay timer has expired, at which time
the ATIM backoff timer shall resume decrementing.
[...]
--- %< ---
However, I feel that pointing from the mesh amendement to something
rather IBSS specific is not well defined. This clause doesn't
"obviously" port to mesh since the BSSID is left zeroed in mesh! But the
draft doesn't change 11.1.2.2 either to adjust for this difference.
Hence, I think the draft needs to be expanded to modify 11.1.2.2 to
explain under which circumstances an MP shall cancel its beacon if it
opts to use IBSS-like beaconing.
I think the only useful thing is to require it to look at the mesh IEs,
but that is not implementable with existing hardware, at least not
without firmware changes. I could probably do it in Broadcom firmware
fairly easily...
So now I've probably answered my first question implicitly because I
pointed out how I think using IBSS-like beaconing isn't even
well-defined ;)
johannes
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2008-02-26 15:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-26 14:07 Johannes Berg [this message]
2008-02-26 15:42 ` mesh beaconing questions Dan Williams
2008-02-26 15:54 ` Johannes Berg
2008-03-05 5:37 ` Javier Cardona
2008-03-05 9:35 ` Johannes Berg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1204034825.13162.233.camel@johannes.berg \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=javier@cozybit.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luisca@cozybit.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox