> > RTS/CTS is a good feature in case where clients can > not hear each other. In case of Infrastructure mode too, 2 client nodes can be hidden from each other. > RTS/CTS has an added overhead of sending RTS/CTS and > then real data can > be transferred. This needs to be performed for each > packet transmitted. Isnt it Worth the overhead to prevent data collisions. Data collisions are costly in the sense much more slots are wasted than during a RTS collision.
> If packet size is small, RTS/CTS could add high > overhead and hence > reduced throughput. Performed tests and network > simulation shows that > RTS/CTS may be good in case of large packet size. > RIght , thats why in my opinion, that RTS threshold should be set to an optimum value (some papers say arnd 200) Harish > Hope this helps > Lalit > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > balan h > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 1:00 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [BAWUG] RTS threshold question > > Hi, > The RTS threshold value in many Access ports is set > to 2300+ bytes as default value. This is apparently > to > disable RTS/CTS exchanges. I dont understand why we > do > this. > Isnt the RTS/CTS exchange used only in the > 'Contention Period' of 802.11 where the Access point > does no polling? Then shouldnt we enable RTS/CTS > exchange most of the time by setting RTS threshold > to > a low value, to avoid collisions? > > > balanh > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. > http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools > -- > general wireless list, a bawug thing > <http://www.bawug.org/> > [un]subscribe: > http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
