| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Ahmed, I have a similar concern with Rojan. The TDLS operation is transparent to the AP, why the STA need to inform the channel switching operation the AP? In my view, the TDLS peer can switch to any off-channel without any notification, but the TDLS peer need follow the regular rule, like AFC, DFS, etc. Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang From: Ahmed Ibrahim <0000162d12c1fcf3-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Rojan, Thank you for your timely review of the CR. I have two follow-up questions regarding what you are proposing of making the channel switching negotiation-based instead of announcement-based. 1- Our understanding for AFC/DFS issue is that it is still valid for legacy TDLS (introduced in 11ax). TDLS channel switching between STAs is notification-based without checking
back with the AP. This is why we followed the same route as 11ax of making channel switching notification-based. Why do you think that AFC/DFS issue is specific to 11be but not in 11ax? 2- Why wouldn't the non-AP MLD be aware of NSTR conditions? Non-AP MLD should have knowledge about NSTR link pairs and channels. It may not know the status of the other link
in the NSTR link pair but this is why the notification is used. We wanted to follow the baseline of TDLS operation by making it as independent as possible from AP's control. The concern is that if we allow negotiation on channel switch
and AP keeps rejecting the channel switch, then TDLS link may deteriorate especially if it carries latency-sensitive traffic. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. Ahmed On Wednesday, April 13, 2022, 09:34:37 PM MDT, Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Ahmed, Thanks for sharing, I have made some comments, please see attached. For ease of discussion, I have also copied the comment here: Not clear what is AP MLD’s action upon receiving the TDLS Channel Switch Notification frame? I think a simple “notification” is not enough,
a two way “permission” frame exchange would be better, i.e., the non-AP seeks permission from the AP-MLD prior to switching to an TDLS off-channel. This is especially true for the 6 GHz band, or even in 5 GHz DFS channels, in which the channel needs to be
checked prior to using the channel (e.g., with AFC). Even for “regular” channels/links, it would be good to check with AP prior to switching, e.g., the link may be part of a NSTR link pair, and non-AP STA may not be aware etc. Since AP would have such knowledge,
it would make sense that the AP decides whether an off-channel may be used (rather than the non-AP checking it self). For this reason, highly encourage to consider two way explicit “permission” exchange with the AP rather than a simple “notification”. Regards, Rojan From: Ahmed Ibrahim <0000162d12c1fcf3-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Everyone, I have uploaded a CR for some TDLS CIDs (CIDs 4033, 4590, 4593). Would you please let me know if you have comments/suggestions/questions to make convergence faster? Thank you. Ahmed 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
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 |