Kai wrote:
> That means the best idea would be some kind of distributed algorithm
> that groups stations accordingly, maybe based on signal strength
> measurements. One flaw of such a system would be that "everyone
> else" is required to remain silent while the signal of a given
> station is being monitored. Propagating the information who
> should transmit a test signal at what time is not trivial,
> especially if we also consider asymmetric links.
>
> Any ideas anyone?
802.11 has mechanisms to manage the "RF lan".
The RTS/CTS protocol in 802.11 handles the hidden transmitter problem.
A network node wishing to send data through the central station (the
access point) sends an RTS packet that contains the originating stations
id, the acces point then replies with a CTS with the same id, other
stations that did not hear the RTS will hear the CTS and thus know that
the access point is busy. When idle the access point advertises that fact
at intervals.
There is a lot in 802.11 and as I am not actually directly interested
currently in the local link I have not yet fully read the spec. I have
only read the Harris application note that G8OTA put me on to.
--
Regards
Richard
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amateur radio callsign: G1SOG Home BBS: G1SOG@GB7SDN.#49.GBR.EU
Amprnet co-ordinator for Wiltshire
My opinions are mine, all mine. None to spare for unopinionated masses.
This message comes from a WinTel free zone. CPU = Cyrix, OS = Linux.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
