Cool. How can I get this information at that time? On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Josh Blum <j...@ettus.com> wrote:
> > > On 09/15/2012 11:45 PM, usrp n210 wrote: > > Is there any advantage to use TUN/TAP interface ? > > Tun/tap is a convenient way to get access to the network stack from > userspace. Unfortunately the benchmark* apps abuse tun/tap as a mac > layer, which is precisely the wrong thing to do. > > For example: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#TCP_over_wireless_networks > > (if you wait a few days, there will be some sweet work released with MAC > layer + message passing in GRC. Stay tuned...) > > -josh > > > As 802.11bbn also uses TUN/TAP interface. > > But I think in the tun/tap performance degrades as we send the packet > back > > to user process? > > Therefore I compare results with benchmark_xx.py in /ofdm with tunnel.py > > in /ofdm. > > In results benchmark_xx.py do not give consistent throughput (i.e. it > > varies on channel) but tunnel.py gives 100% throughput irrespective of > > channel > > Will there be any valid reason for this ? > > If I want to implement 2-way communication in USRP should I use TUN/TAP > > interface? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list > Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio > -- Alex, *Dreams can come true – just believe.*
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
