Re: Atheros, hardware access layer, collisions

2005-07-27 Thread Sam Pierson
On 7/26/05, David Malone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's correct, but it probably takes a few microseconds for the > carries sense to kick in (if there wasn't a delay there would > be almost no need for the random backoff). That's why you'll > also have to have your transmissions synchronised v

Re: Atheros, hardware access layer, collisions

2005-07-27 Thread Sam Pierson
On 7/21/05, Sam Leffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You need to set cwmin on the tx q as David describes. Be sure to set > the parameters you set into the hardware; check the wme update code for > the correct logic. For the other thing just set the tx descriptor to do > 1 try. > > Sam

Re: Atheros, hardware access layer, collisions

2005-07-26 Thread Sam Leffler
David Malone wrote: I just had a lengthy discussion with a couple of guys about the 802.11 protocol. One had said that the random delays inserted before transmission was one of the *IFS delays (can't remember which now), and that it was a standard 802.11 number, not a random delay. Yep - in

Re: Atheros, hardware access layer, collisions

2005-07-26 Thread David Malone
> I just had a lengthy discussion with a couple of guys about the 802.11 > protocol. One had said that the random delays inserted before > transmission was one of the *IFS delays (can't remember which > now), and that it was a standard 802.11 number, not a random > delay. Yep - in 802.11b CWmin

Re: Atheros, hardware access layer, collisions

2005-07-25 Thread Sam Pierson
> OK - you can probably achieve that by setting the retry limit to > be 1, setting CWmin to be very small. However, you'll need to make > sure that both machines transmissions are synchronised to better > than 20us (which is no mean feat), otherwise carrier sense will > foil your plan! I just had

Re: Atheros, hardware access layer, collisions

2005-07-22 Thread Sam Pierson
> You need to set cwmin on the tx q as David describes. Be sure to set > the parameters you set into the hardware; check the wme update code for > the correct logic. For the other thing just set the tx descriptor to do > 1 try. > > Sam Thanks guys. I'm still playing with these files so

Re: Atheros, hardware access layer, collisions

2005-07-21 Thread Sam Leffler
David Malone wrote: I was looking for this in the ah.h and the ah_desc.h files. Are they someplace else, or maybe this is a system call? I can't find anything about the retry limit (<-- CWmin = retry?) Thanks, CWmin is a setting that controls the random delay before packets are transmitted.

Re: Atheros, hardware access layer, collisions

2005-07-21 Thread David Malone
> I was looking for this in the ah.h and the ah_desc.h files. Are they > someplace else, or maybe this is a system call? I can't find anything > about the retry limit (<-- CWmin = retry?) Thanks, CWmin is a setting that controls the random delay before packets are transmitted. Search for tqi_cw

Re: Atheros, hardware access layer, collisions

2005-07-21 Thread Sam Pierson
> OK - you can probably achieve that by setting the retry limit to > be 1, setting CWmin to be very small. I was looking for this in the ah.h and the ah_desc.h files. Are they someplace else, or maybe this is a system call? I can't find anything about the retry limit (<-- CWmin = retry?) Thank

Re: Atheros, hardware access layer, collisions

2005-07-21 Thread David Malone
> I've got two computers synchronized to send one packet each to this > machine sitting between them. This machine responds with a packet > to each that it receives (on the application level, not in the control frame > space), so if there is a collision, I don't want the middle machine to > respon

Re: Atheros, hardware access layer, collisions

2005-07-21 Thread Sam Pierson
On 7/21/05, David Malone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:03:49PM -0500, Sam Pierson wrote: > > I think there is still collision detection happening on the hardware > > level. I think I have to disable the retransmission of frames > > which are lost due to collisions. Here'

Re: Atheros, hardware access layer, collisions

2005-07-20 Thread David Malone
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:03:49PM -0500, Sam Pierson wrote: > I think there is still collision detection happening on the hardware > level. I think I have to disable the retransmission of frames > which are lost due to collisions. Here's my reasoning: In the lab, two > hosts are sending packe