I guess it depends on what you are intending to test. If you are not going to
tinker with any of the over-the-air settings (including the number of packets
transmitted in one aggregate), the details of what happen over the air don't
matter much.
But if you are going to be doing any tinkering with what is getting sent, and
you ignore the hidden transmitter type problems, you will create a solution that
seems to work really well in the lab and falls on it's face out in the wild
where spectrum overload and hidden transmitters are the norm (at least in urban
areas), not rare corner cases.
you don't need to include them in every test, but you need to have a way to
configure your lab to include them before you consider any settings/algorithm
ready to try in the wild.
David Lang
On Mon, 2 Aug 2021, Bob McMahon wrote:
We find four nodes, a primary BSS and an adjunct one quite good for lots of
testing. The six nodes allows for a primary BSS and two adjacent ones. We
want to minimize complexity to necessary and sufficient.
The challenge we find is having variability (e.g. montecarlos) that's
reproducible and has relevant information. Basically, the distance matrices
have h-matrices as their elements. Our chips can provide these h-matrices.
The parts for solid state programmable attenuators and phase shifters
aren't very expensive. A device that supports a five branch tree and 2x2
MIMO seems a very good starting point.
Bob
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 4:55 PM Ben Greear <gree...@candelatech.com> wrote:
On 8/2/21 4:16 PM, David Lang wrote:
If you are going to setup a test environment for wifi, you need to
include the ability to make a fe cases that only happen with RF, not with
wired networks and
are commonly overlooked
1. station A can hear station B and C but they cannot hear each other
2. station A can hear station B but station B cannot hear station A 3.
station A can hear that station B is transmitting, but not with a strong
enough signal to
decode the signal (yes in theory you can work around interference, but
in practice interference is still a real thing)
David Lang
To add to this, I think you need lots of different station devices,
different capabilities (/n, /ac, /ax, etc)
different numbers of spatial streams, and different distances from the
AP. From download queueing perspective, changing
the capabilities may be sufficient while keeping all stations at same
distance. This assumes you are not
actually testing the wifi rate-ctrl alg. itself, so different throughput
levels for different stations would be enough.
So, a good station emulator setup (and/or pile of real stations) and a few
RF chambers and
programmable attenuators and you can test that setup...
From upload perspective, I guess same setup would do the job.
Queuing/fairness might depend a bit more on the
station devices, emulated or otherwise, but I guess a clever AP could
enforce fairness in upstream direction
too by implementing per-sta queues.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <gree...@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
