On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Kamran Nishat <kamran.nis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But for this channel conditions should be changing at the scale of 100
> micro secs consistently.
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > It's not completely unsurprising - the initial channel estimate and
> > such is done at the beginning of each packet and stays constant. So if
> > there's some varying channel conditions that change that during the
> > duration of a packet, the tail end is going to end up having less SNR
> > and may end up getting more errors.
> >
> >
> > -adrian
> >
> > On 24 October 2014 09:04, Ali Abedi <a2ab...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> We study the effects of 802.11n frame aggregation on throughput. We noticed
> >> a
> >> strange pattern in the MPDU loss within an aggregated frame. It seems that
> >> the
> >> second half of the MPDUs (those with higher sequence numbers) in an
> >> aggregated frame
> >> are more likely to be lost. Is this a known fact or is there any
> >> explanation
> >> for it?
> >>
> >> For example if 32 frames are aggregated with sequence numbers 100 to 131.
> >> Frames with sequence numbers 100-115 are more likely to be received
> >> correctly
> >> than 116-131.
> >>
> There is no known limitation/explanation for losing 2nd half of MPDU's in an
> A-MPDU
*every time (most likely)*. This might specific to the case, can you
share a capture?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
