From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 26 03:05:35 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5DE16A41F
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 03:05:35 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from samuel.pierson@gmail.com)
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.202])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10A9943D45
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 03:05:34 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from samuel.pierson@gmail.com)
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 71so989219wri
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=cPVVfcIOzfctptz85Nzw5L+lxBmH9oLQ5zcxBy0UbULuF4qqLVfXxjBAUWw4rY0ASlvTccexUwbE+7q+QYzEYiIeAe3WEtu8yNFD2hT5do36u320Oq2migU98tsNJHPf0nmqls/pPz9ynPhpF8Jw/dz6SPJoYYiIucln/WYwf1M=
Received: by 10.54.69.12 with SMTP id r12mr2417796wra;
	Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.144.1 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <d9204e4c05072520052082b27@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:05:34 -0500
From: Sam Pierson <samuel.pierson@gmail.com>
To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <200507211647.aa79456@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <d9204e4c050721062174d08e97@mail.gmail.com>
	<200507211647.aa79456@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Atheros, hardware access layer, collisions
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Sam Pierson <samuel.pierson@gmail.com>
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 03:05:35 -0000

> 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 a lengthy discussion with a couple of guys about the 802.11
protocol.   One had said that the random delays inserted before=20
transmission was one of the *IFS delays (can't remember which
now), and that it was a standard 802.11 number, not a random=20
delay.  We all came to the same conclusion as this list, that we=20
have to set the transmission attempts to 1 and that CWmin must
be very small (like 1). =20

The thing he said was that if carrier sensing "sensed" that the channel
was busy, it would not decrement the CW, effectively NOT transmitting
this packet until the channel is clear. =20

Is the carrier sensing something done in the HAL, or is it embedded
in the hardware itself?