From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Charles Clancy Subject: Re: WiMAX extensions Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 13:34:05 -0400 Message-ID: <465B128D.9070904@cs.umd.edu> References: <50721.65.74.1.247.1178691838.squirrel@webmail.cs.umd.edu> <20070513033218.GL20770@che.ojctech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20070513033218.GL20770-eZ+MEZF6i8Dc+919tysfdA@public.gmane.org> Sender: radiotap-admin-rN9S6JXhQ+WXmMXjJBpWqg@public.gmane.org Errors-To: radiotap-admin-rN9S6JXhQ+WXmMXjJBpWqg@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: radiotap-rN9S6JXhQ+WXmMXjJBpWqg@public.gmane.org List-Id: radiotap@radiotap.org David Young wrote: >> I can put together a list of fields that it would be good to define, if >> the list thinks this is an appropriate use for Radiotap. > > Yes, please. 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. In general, 802.16 is much more stateful than 802.11, so much less of the basic packet/network metadata is available in the headers. Consequently, there are more things that would be useful to see in the radiotap header. Suggested new fields: - TDD or FDD network - uplink or downlink - received frequency (in kHz, MHz is not specific enough) - BSID (unlike 802.11, this is not in the MAC-CPS) - whether the PDU contains a CRC32 at the end - whether the PDU is encrypted - UIUC or DIUC for the PDU, and associated modulation/coding -- t. charles clancy, ph.d. <> tcc-e45ueOrobK4@public.gmane.org <> www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy