On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> When that is not the case, however, we disagree. I think that because >> aggregation isn't a QoS mechanism, it should behave the same way as in >> the case where no stations have aggregation enabled, and stall the whole >> queue. On the other hand, you think it is a QoS mechanism, and let >> streams for the fast stations be interleaved with the slow station, >> leaving only frames for the slow station piling up. > > I just found IEEE 802.11-2007 subclause 9.10 which actually explains all > the block-ack business without aggregation, but I assume that > aggregation now just means that instead of sending > mpdu + sifs + (mpdu + sifs)* + blockackreq > you send simply > a-mpdu > > I see nothing in 9.10 that supports the view that aggregation/block-ack > should create a new traffic stream. It doesn't have to be spelled, it's clear from the fact that traffic is defined by <TID,RA> pair. A-MPDU stuff is simplified version of what you've read there. Tomas -- 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
