Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> The problem I can see is that the dialog_tokens are 8-bit, way too small >> to eliminate conflicts. > > Well, they're also per station, we could just randomize the start and > then we'd delete the old session and start a new one, on the receiver. > > So that would improve robustness somewhat (down to a 1/256 chance to hit > this problem). That was what I meant. Still, 1/256 seems hardly acceptable to me - unless there is some work around (a short timeout or something similar). Remember that when it doesn't work, it doesn't work - it won't recover until the sequence catches up, which may mean basically forever. Or, maybe the remote station can request de-aggregation first, so the subsequent aggregation request is always treated as new? Alternatively, perhaps the remote can signal that it's a new request and not merely an existing session? > That's the situation though - the local station needs to know that it > has in fact *not* seen the same instance of the station, but that the > station has reset and needs to be removed & re-added. Precisely. And it seems to me that the first time the local station learns of this is when a new, regular, non-aggregated packet arrives. Or, when a new aggregation request arrives. -- Krzysztof Halasa ŁUKASIEWICZ Research Network Industrial Research Institute for Automation and Measurements PIAP Al. Jerozolimskie 202, 02-486 Warsaw, Poland
