Re: WiMAX extensions

[David Young <dyoung-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Charles Clancy wrote:
> Guy Harris wrote:
> >>There would certainly be overlap with 802.11.  However most 
> >>implementations I've seen seem to prefix the fields with IEEE80211_, 
> >>so I'd think these would all need to be replicated for 802.16.  I'm 
> >>not sure the best way to handle it.
> >
> >Replicated, or renamed, with the old names kept around for source 
> >compatibility - or with IEEE80211_ and IEEE80216_ names for the same value?
> 
> Ideally, I'd think renaming fields that apply to any wireless standard 
> would be best, keeping around the old values for compatibility, of 
> course.  Then there could be protocol-specific fields for each standard.
> 
> I think the following would be globally useful:
> 
> IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_TSFT
> IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_RATE
> IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_DB*
> IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_ANTENNA
> IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_FLAGS (though you might need a general flag set and a 
> protocol-specific flag set)
> 
> Is Radiotap meant to be used on outgoing packets as well?  If so, there 
> are a variety of outgoing packet fields that might also be useful.

I am going to use radiotap for that.  I believe someone has already done
it.  I have some funding and a plan to add to NetBSD both socket options
and packet ancillary data for sending/receiving packets with radiotap.
I will be bringing proposals to the list in the next few months.

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933 ext 24