| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hello Both, One comment. A mesh STA only talks to other mesh STAs, so its choice of A-MSDU format is unambiguous. This also applies to .11ak only if an .11ak AP talks only to .11ak STAs. Of course a .11ak STA might also associate with a non-.11ak AP. So the non-AP STA needs to know “associated with an .11ak AP”. This is reasonable because what is logically an .11ak AP could be a single physical box supporting two logical APs, one for non-.11ak and one not. non-.11ak STAs can be excluded from the .11ak-only BSS using the BSS membership selector field. I personally prefer to make all packet formats self-defining, i.e., to require the minimal amount of non-on-the-air state to decode them. It makes the designers’ job easier. It also makes debugging and sniffing a whole lot easier. I don’t know if this is possible in this case, but it is always my starting position, regardless of whether the entire BSS is .11ak-only. Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office) Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA) ---------------------------------------------- From: Hamilton, Mark [mailto:Mark.Hamilton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Donald, On the call just now, you brought up the topic of how to indicate a “different/unique” type of A-MSDU that would carry the additional 11ak-defined information, as distinct from a ‘normal’ A-MSDU which has no such control
information. This was in an attempt to make this new frame structure re-usable by non-11ak devices, I believe. I thought about it for a brief time, and I think I’m concluding that we should treat the 11ak link somewhat similarly to a mesh link. That is, since there is already an assumption of mutual exclusion between 11ak and
non-11ak devices within a BSS, we can safely ignore the backward compatibility problems of having frame formats that legacy devices cannot understand. Part of my rationale is that even if we did introduce some sort of method that would allow non-11ak devices to re-use this new format for A-MSDU, then it will require yet another capability mechanism to indicate when
a set of peer STAs were both capable of understanding this format, and a justification for why this would be useful, to make it work and get it into the non-11ak world. Off hand, I don’t see that. So, as I said, my recommendation would be to not worry about this aspect. Instead, we simply say that on an 11ak link, A-MSDUs have a different format, just like the way mesh says that today (see 802.11-2012, 8.3.2.2,
if anyone is wondering what I’m talking about). I think it makes things simple, and we have a strong precedent for this approach. Comments, anyone? Mark _______________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to -
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAK and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand. SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAK and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button. Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________ |