On Tuesday 13 April 2010 16:21:15 Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 09:16 +0900, Bruno Randolf wrote: > > On Monday 12 April 2010 17:40:52 you wrote: > > > On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 17:34 +0900, Bruno Randolf wrote: > > > > before we unconditionally used 3 (1Mbps, 2 Mbps) as basic rates. this > > > > clearly is wrong in the 5GHz band. > > > > > > No, it's fine. Look again at how this works. > > > > (hello? can you please stop treating me like an idiot?) > > > > this means we use 6 and 9 as basic rates in the 5GHz band. > > we should use 6, 12 and 24. > > No, we can treat 6 and 9 as basic rates if we want to when we create the > IBSS. You seem to be confusing basic and mandatory rates or something > else that I can't make sense of. It's NOT "clearly wrong". ok, i agree that we are probably allowed to choose any basic rates when we create an IBSS - but the question is: why would we want to use lower rates? does it not make sense to use all mandatory rates as basic rates? as a side note: the reason i am concerned about the basic rates is that when we use RTC/CTS (which are sent at a basic rate) thruput gets quite low when the basic rates are (too?) low. this is a tradeoff between reliability and speed - and probably should be user configurable. so maybe instead of adding a "g-only" flag to ibss creation, should i add an iw command for setting the basic rates? what do you think about that? bruno -- 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
