Agree - how about keeping RTS/CTS for its intended use (collision avoidance), and use a smarter technique for roaming (e.g. getting load information from AP's beacons)? --- balan h <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Rupert Wever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When configuring the client's RTS treshold... > > > > "Setting this parameter to a small value causes RTS > > packets to be sent more often. When this > > occurs, more of the available bandwidth is consumed > > and the throughput of other network packets is > > reduced. However, the system is able to recover > > faster from interference or collisions that may be > > caused from a high multipath environment > > characterized by obstructions or metallic surfaces." > > > > The client driver will look at the RTS retries to > > determine if in "distress" (i.e. not associated > > to an AP). A scan is initiated to look for > > available APs. > > > This imo only supports the point that RTS/CTS should > be used i.e an optimal RTS threshold should be used. > > bala > > This is what we like to call "Distress Roaming". > > > > > > --- Lalit Kotecha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Rupert, > > > > > > May I request you to elaborate in little more > > details about this roaming > > > feature? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Lalit > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Rupert Wever > > > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 10:13 AM > > > To: balan h; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [BAWUG] RTS threshold question > > > > > > Balan, > > > > > > Some (if not most) 802.11 NIC clients use this RTS > > treshold > > > to make roaming decisions. Perhaps that's the > > reason? > > > > > > -RW > > > --- balan h <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > __________________________________ > 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
