| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
802.11 links are NOT latency sensitive. Links
“have” properties such as “low latency”, however they are never sensitive to
that property. Try to imagine what sensitivity to latency would mean below
layer 3! That said, the properties of such links
ARE sensitive to (aka “are a function of”) external environmental factors such
as load on the channel (aka congestion). That’s why there are “priorities” …
so that when necessary and appropriate, some links can “move to the head of the
queue” and thereby the system can offer some form of QoS. What it appears is
going on is the use of multiple links to add more capabilities to offer QOS at
some level. Instead of just using EDCA (DCF) and 4 queues of different priority,
more links presumably with different EDCA parameters for each queue are added
to the mix, and the AP STA has more resources to attempt to provide a level of
QoS to its STAs. It doesn’t do this over “latency sensitive links” however. It
does it using multiple resources (links and queues on those links) and “intelligent”
resource allocation. Naturally, if this is NOT the intent, please ignore this email
:^)))) If the plan is to establish something
other than a “traditional” 802.11 link (repleat w/ DCF, etc.), then give it a
name that contains some identifying characteristis of that “new link type”. Otherwise,
Dmitry is probably right in suggesting that you really do not need a new name. My two cents … RR From: Chunyu Hu
[mailto:chunyuhu07@xxxxxxxxx] Hi, Dmitry: Good question. Yes or No. As explained in the contribution, we think it's necessary to exercise
some set of management/policies and channel access rules that are different
from regular traffic (versus latency sensitive traffic). Hence the
differentiation among links. If we don't have such a definition, we may eventually come up with
something like "a link where certain operations and configurations are
conducted to optimize for latency sensitive applications" every time we
need to mention such a link. The intention of the SP is to provide such a term. Please let me know if you or anyone has further questions. Thanks. Chunyu On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:17 PM Akhmetov, Dmitry <Dmitry.Akhmetov@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
To
unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 |