On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 21:06 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > I'm just worried that we'll require a whole bunch of different > > > interfaces. Yes, in theory there isn't much to control, but iwlwifi > > > firmware for example can, as far as I interpret the code, dynamically > > > vary the listen interval. > > > > You mean the wakeup interval? For me, listen interval means the > > maximum time AP is willing to buffer frames for a STA. > > No, I mean the listen interval in the assoc request frame. ... > > I think stlc45xx/p54 even had something > > similar. But honestly, I don't know if this kind of trickery is > > useful. Why not directly go to the longest wakeup interval > > immediately? > > But listen interval * beacon interval determines latency. although, of course, the listen interval in the assoc request is just the local max -- since the AP already sets the TIM bit as soon as it has data buffered we can wake up earlier if we want to. In a sense, therefore, the listen interval determines the maximum latency we and the AP are willing to put up with. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
