Hi Jouni,
thanks for your review.
On 10/15/21 11:22 PM, Jouni Malinen wrote:
On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 07:04:05PM +0200, David Bauer wrote:
When determining the expected throughput from a AP, take the AP-reported
channel utilization (QBSS Load element) into consideration.
While it would be nice to do something like this to be able to use that
information from the AP, this specific way of doing that would seem to
have a significant risk of penalizing any AP that supports this
capability compared to APs that do not provide any indication which
would be processed as if they had advertised 0% channel load. That does
not feel correct and could result in selecting worse candidates.
Good point, this is indeed a problem in the current state.
I would also point out that at least the last time I did some testing
between vendor implementations, the reported values were completely
different between two APs on the same channel in more or less the same
location in the test setup.. In other words, I would not place much, if
any, trust in this value being something that could be compared between
two different APs. The only thing that seemed to be more or less
comparable was the values from the same AP device in a sense that the
channel load value increased when there was more traffic on the
channel..
Just to be sure - do you dislike the idea of implementing the Channel
load at all or do you think It's better if we cap the impact at some
value (50% of throughput)?
I'm aware the implementation on the AP side vary widely. However, when
having a multi-AP setup with multiple identical APs with multiple 5GHz
radios operating on different frequencies (e.g. a lecture hall),
selecting a BSS with lower load is preferable IMHO.
I also thought about comparing based on connected Stations, however this
would require a larger refactoring of the selection code.
Best
David
_______________________________________________
Hostap mailing list
Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
