On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Kamran Nishat <kamran.nishat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But for this channel conditions should be changing at the scale of 100 > micro secs consistently. > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It's not completely unsurprising - the initial channel estimate and > > such is done at the beginning of each packet and stays constant. So if > > there's some varying channel conditions that change that during the > > duration of a packet, the tail end is going to end up having less SNR > > and may end up getting more errors. > > > > > > -adrian > > > > On 24 October 2014 09:04, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> We study the effects of 802.11n frame aggregation on throughput. We noticed > >> a > >> strange pattern in the MPDU loss within an aggregated frame. It seems that > >> the > >> second half of the MPDUs (those with higher sequence numbers) in an > >> aggregated frame > >> are more likely to be lost. Is this a known fact or is there any explanation > >> for it? > >> > >> For example if 32 frames are aggregated with sequence numbers 100 to 131. > >> Frames with sequence numbers 100-115 are more likely to be received > >> correctly > >> than 116-131. > >> > There is no known limitation/explanation for losing 2nd half of MPDU's in an A-MPDU *every time (most likely)*. This might specific to the case, can you share a capture? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
