On 5/20/19 12:25 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 09:59, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
the curious thing is still that the fallback code applies only for 2.4
ghz so it would never have affected 802.11ac
Hm, does RC fall back to 11na or 11a rates when doing 11ac? (in 5G
mode.)
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 09:59, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
> the curious thing is still that the fallback code applies only for 2.4
> ghz so it would never have affected 802.11ac
Hm, does RC fall back to 11na or 11a rates when doing 11ac? (in 5G
mode.) It's good to know fixing that would fix it
Am 17.05.2019 um 18:00 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 5/17/19 8:47 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 08:06, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
personally i think going back to basic rates like 2 mbit makes no sense
anyway. its that dead slow that a connection must break and has to be
broken
Am 17.05.2019 um 17:47 schrieb Adrian Chadd:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 08:06, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
personally i think going back to basic rates like 2 mbit makes no sense
anyway. its that dead slow that a connection must break and has to be
broken if this doesnt work.
still a shame
On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 09:00, Ben Greear wrote:
>
> On 5/17/19 8:47 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 08:06, Sebastian Gottschall
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> personally i think going back to basic rates like 2 mbit makes no sense
> >> anyway. its that dead slow that a connection
On 5/17/19 8:47 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 08:06, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
personally i think going back to basic rates like 2 mbit makes no sense
anyway. its that dead slow that a connection must break and has to be
broken if this doesnt work.
still a shame that
Am 17.05.2019 um 13:48 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 05/16/2019 09:21 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 16.05.2019 um 21:40 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 5/15/19 6:00 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
On 5/15/19 5:26 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 15.05.2019 um 14:20 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 05/14/2019 09:26
On 05/16/2019 09:21 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 16.05.2019 um 21:40 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 5/15/19 6:00 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
On 5/15/19 5:26 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 15.05.2019 um 14:20 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 05/14/2019 09:26 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
can you
Am 16.05.2019 um 21:40 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 5/15/19 6:00 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
On 5/15/19 5:26 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 15.05.2019 um 14:20 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 05/14/2019 09:26 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
can you send me a detailed instruction for testing this on my
On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 13:20, Ben Greear wrote:
>
> On 5/16/19 1:16 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > You can't do AMPDU with OFDM/CCK. If they're setting the AMPDU bit
> > then that's wrong. it needs to be individual MPDU/PPDUs.
> >
> > There's a benefit for CCK. OFDM 6M is I think roughly the same as
On 5/16/19 1:16 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
You can't do AMPDU with OFDM/CCK. If they're setting the AMPDU bit
then that's wrong. it needs to be individual MPDU/PPDUs.
There's a benefit for CCK. OFDM 6M is I think roughly the same as OFDM
MCS0. But CCK is a lot more reliable.
5Ghz can (should)
You can't do AMPDU with OFDM/CCK. If they're setting the AMPDU bit
then that's wrong. it needs to be individual MPDU/PPDUs.
There's a benefit for CCK. OFDM 6M is I think roughly the same as OFDM
MCS0. But CCK is a lot more reliable.
-adrian
On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 13:10, Ben Greear wrote:
>
>
On 5/16/19 12:55 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
You can totally go down to OFDM yeah but you then need to send it at
20MHz and non-AMPDU.
Is it maybe the retry code + rate control code is retagging an AMPDU
at a lower rate and it's transitioning down to CCK/OFDM without
breaking the AMPDU apart?
It
You can totally go down to OFDM yeah but you then need to send it at
20MHz and non-AMPDU.
Is it maybe the retry code + rate control code is retagging an AMPDU
at a lower rate and it's transitioning down to CCK/OFDM without
breaking the AMPDU apart?
-a
On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 12:40, Ben Greear
On 5/15/19 6:00 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
On 5/15/19 5:26 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 15.05.2019 um 14:20 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 05/14/2019 09:26 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
can you send me a detailed instruction for testing this on my devices? so which
commands have been used for
On 5/15/19 5:26 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 15.05.2019 um 14:20 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 05/14/2019 09:26 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
can you send me a detailed instruction for testing this on my devices? so which
commands have been used for generating the traffic etc. (iperf3?)
I
Am 15.05.2019 um 14:20 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 05/14/2019 09:26 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
can you send me a detailed instruction for testing this on my
devices? so which commands have been used for generating the traffic
etc. (iperf3?)
I am using our own traffic generator, but I
On 05/14/2019 09:26 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
can you send me a detailed instruction for testing this on my devices? so which
commands have been used for generating the traffic etc. (iperf3?)
I am using our own traffic generator, but I imagine iperf3 should work fine too.
I am testing
can you send me a detailed instruction for testing this on my devices?
so which commands have been used for generating the traffic etc. (iperf3?)
Sebastian
Am 15.05.2019 um 03:52 schrieb Ben Greear:
Hello,
I found a strange issue and curious if someone has seen similar.
I made an AP where
Hello,
I found a strange issue and curious if someone has seen similar.
I made an AP where the AP interface acts as a routed interface. I generate
traffic through another interface in the router. When sending 300Mbps of 512
byte
UDP payloads, in the downstream direction, and with the station
20 matches
Mail list logo
