On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 10:33 -0500, Nils Bagge wrote: > My humble opinion is yes, the HT capabilities field should be constant, > from the perspective of a typical AP. Yeah I totally agree. > Practically speaking, I doubt that an AP would want to toggle SM power > save at all, let alone on a per-beacon basis, as historically power > consumption is not as critical at the AP vs. at the client. True. > But, if you want to be 'green'... (I can see how this would benefit a > 'low power AP') The only problem I see is with the AP entering 'static > SM power save'. You might run into interoperability trouble with varying > behavior of client STA's, due to different interpretations of the > standard or assumptions. It wouldn't surprise me if some clients ignore > changes to the HT capabilities IE once associated, or if some ignore the > SM power save field in beacons entirely. Hence, they could transmit a > 2-stream MCS which would not be decodable with a single RX chain. > > Theoretically, the only SM power save mode I'd recommend for an AP is > dynamic SM power save. Right, but if you enter dynamic SM PS then it doesn't matter much anyway, does it? I mean, there's no protection requirement in that case, is there? Or am I reading it wrong? I _think_ I will handle the SM PS change in mac80211, but I'm not entirely sure right now. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
