On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 20:54 +0300, Jouni Malinen wrote: > > I don't see how it cannot be -- you need stations not capable of > > short-preamble to correctly update their NAV, no? > > Well, if you have many such devices, yes, but one might try to live > without such protection if there are some with very limited transmit > needs. Would you then announce short preamble as the AP? That'd mean all other stations would use short preamble and the poor non-short-preamble STA would be left completely in the dark wrt. its NAV. > I don't know whether it would make much sense in most cases and > anyway, it would be possible to make APs reject all associations from > such devices. For example, I could see an attempt to dedicate one > channel for 11g (ERP) and short preamble supported STAs and make the > more modern implementations get somewhat better throughput there. Indeed, that is possible, I think there's even a status code allocated for this. > I'll try to remember to file a comment to TGmb on this (they are still > collecting comments for fixing issues in 802.11 and published > amendments). Probe Request with this does not make much sense (unless > you are either only interested in BSSes that support short preamble > and/or you know that the AP you're interested is able to receive this). > Authentication, association, and public action frames might be more > likely candidates for this. Ohh. Just a few days ago I sent an email with a request for interpretation (there really just is a typo in 802.11-2007 but...) That got forwarded around a lot, but I guess at least TGmb will see it :) johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
