Re: [ath9k-devel] Standardisation - adding 2 bit STBC and Ness to MCS (repost 3)
Hallo all, so, there is no updates or critic on this topic. That mean, every thing is OK. I assume suggested-fields/MCS extension for STBC and Ness http://www.radiotap.org/suggested-fields/MCS%20extension%20for%20STBC%20and%20Ness can be moved to defined-fields/MCS http://www.radiotap.org/defined-fields/MCS Johannes, your word ;) Am 09.05.2013 11:55, schrieb Oleksij Rempel: Hallo all, this is probably third repost of this standardisation request. History: - 11 May 2012. initial request made by Simon Barber. http://www.radiotap.org/suggested-fields/MCS%20extension%20for%20STBC%20and%20Ness - 1 Okt 2012, Wireshark support this fields. Patches provided by Wojciech Dubowik. https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6720 - 1 Nov 2012. patches for intel adapters, ieee80211 and wireshark was uploaded by Simon. http://www.radiotap.org/suggested-fields/MCS%20extension%20for%20STBC%20and%20Ness?action=AttachFile - 17 Nov 2012. Simon posted new thread as suggested Johannes Berg. - 1 May 2013. I restarted this discussion. link to initial discussion: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.network.wireless.radiotap/302 As you can see it is already long standing issue... Now to proposal mad by Simon. Please add comments like: agreed or not agreed and why. Proposal === This proposal is to extend the current MCS radiotap header to carry STBC and Ness information. This information is carried in the 802.11 HT-SIG field that carries all the other fields currently in this radiotap MCS header. Both STBC and Ness fields are needed alongside the others to calculate the length (duration in time) of a frame. This proposal adds 3 bits to the known field and the flags field. See below for proposed text. = MCS = Bit Number:: 19 Structure:: u8 known, u8 flags, u8 mcs Required Alignment:: 1 The `mcs` field indicates the MCS rate index as in [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n-2009#Data_rates|IEEE_802.11n-2009]] The `known` field indicates which information is known: ||'''flag'''||'''definition'''|| || `0x01` || bandwidth || || `0x02` || MCS index known (in `mcs` part of the field) || || `0x04` || guard interval || || `0x08` || HT format || || `0x10` || FEC type || || `0x20` || STBC known || || `0x40` || Ness known (Number of extension spatial streams) || || `0x80` || Ness data - bit 1 (MSB) of Number of extension spatial streams || The `flags` field is any combination of the following: || '''flag''' || '''definition''' || || `0x03` || bandwidth - 0: 20, 1: 40, 2: 20L, 3: 20U || || `0x04` || guard interval - 0: long GI, 1: short GI || || `0x08` || HT format - 0: mixed, 1: greenfield || || `0x10` || FEC type - 0: BCC, 1: LDPC || || `0x60` || Number of STBC streams || || `0x80` || Ness - bit 0 (LSB) of Number of extension spatial streams | -- Regards, Oleksij ___ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Re: [ath9k-devel] Standardisation - adding 2 bit STBC and Ness to MCS (repost 3)
On Thu, 2013-05-16 at 11:01 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: Hallo all, so, there is no updates or critic on this topic. That mean, every thing is OK. I tend to agree. I assume suggested-fields/MCS extension for STBC and Ness http://www.radiotap.org/suggested-fields/MCS%20extension%20for%20STBC%20and%20Ness can be moved to defined-fields/MCS http://www.radiotap.org/defined-fields/MCS Johannes, your word ;) I don't really have any say, but go for it, for all I care :) johannes ___ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
[ath9k-devel] Standardisation - adding 2 bit STBC and Ness to MCS (repost 3)
Hallo all, this is probably third repost of this standardisation request. History: - 11 May 2012. initial request made by Simon Barber. http://www.radiotap.org/suggested-fields/MCS%20extension%20for%20STBC%20and%20Ness - 1 Okt 2012, Wireshark support this fields. Patches provided by Wojciech Dubowik. https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6720 - 1 Nov 2012. patches for intel adapters, ieee80211 and wireshark was uploaded by Simon. http://www.radiotap.org/suggested-fields/MCS%20extension%20for%20STBC%20and%20Ness?action=AttachFile - 17 Nov 2012. Simon posted new thread as suggested Johannes Berg. - 1 May 2013. I restarted this discussion. link to initial discussion: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.network.wireless.radiotap/302 As you can see it is already long standing issue... Now to proposal mad by Simon. Please add comments like: agreed or not agreed and why. Proposal === This proposal is to extend the current MCS radiotap header to carry STBC and Ness information. This information is carried in the 802.11 HT-SIG field that carries all the other fields currently in this radiotap MCS header. Both STBC and Ness fields are needed alongside the others to calculate the length (duration in time) of a frame. This proposal adds 3 bits to the known field and the flags field. See below for proposed text. = MCS = Bit Number:: 19 Structure:: u8 known, u8 flags, u8 mcs Required Alignment:: 1 The `mcs` field indicates the MCS rate index as in [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n-2009#Data_rates|IEEE_802.11n-2009]] The `known` field indicates which information is known: ||'''flag'''||'''definition'''|| || `0x01` || bandwidth || || `0x02` || MCS index known (in `mcs` part of the field) || || `0x04` || guard interval || || `0x08` || HT format || || `0x10` || FEC type || || `0x20` || STBC known || || `0x40` || Ness known (Number of extension spatial streams) || || `0x80` || Ness data - bit 1 (MSB) of Number of extension spatial streams || The `flags` field is any combination of the following: || '''flag''' || '''definition''' || || `0x03` || bandwidth - 0: 20, 1: 40, 2: 20L, 3: 20U || || `0x04` || guard interval - 0: long GI, 1: short GI || || `0x08` || HT format - 0: mixed, 1: greenfield || || `0x10` || FEC type - 0: BCC, 1: LDPC || || `0x60` || Number of STBC streams || || `0x80` || Ness - bit 0 (LSB) of Number of extension spatial streams | -- Regards, Oleksij ___ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Re: [ath9k-devel] Standardisation - adding 2 bit STBC and Ness to MCS
Am 02.05.2013 22:44, schrieb Johannes Berg: On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 16:34 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: With this I believe we have everything needed to start the 3 week comment period. Yeah, I guess there was plenty of time. I would have preferred a separate thread, but I guess there's little enough traffic on this list so it doesn't really matter. There is a bit more then 3 week now. I would like to have this approved :) Are there any thing needed to finish this? http://www.radiotap.org/Standardisation johannes ping. Johannes, are you the one who says last word on standardisation for radiotap? -- Regards, Oleksij ___ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Re: [ath9k-devel] Standardisation - adding 2 bit STBC and Ness to MCS
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 09:40 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: Am 02.05.2013 22:44, schrieb Johannes Berg: On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 16:34 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: With this I believe we have everything needed to start the 3 week comment period. Yeah, I guess there was plenty of time. I would have preferred a separate thread, but I guess there's little enough traffic on this list so it doesn't really matter. There is a bit more then 3 week now. I would like to have this approved :) Are there any thing needed to finish this? http://www.radiotap.org/Standardisation johannes ping. Johannes, are you the one who says last word on standardisation for radiotap? No? I thought the link made that pretty clear. But since nobody poked holes in this and it's been a long time, I think you should probably just post this has been adopted now ... johannes ___ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Re: [ath9k-devel] Standardisation - adding 2 bit STBC and Ness to MCS
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 15:54 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 09:40 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: Am 02.05.2013 22:44, schrieb Johannes Berg: On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 16:34 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: With this I believe we have everything needed to start the 3 week comment period. Yeah, I guess there was plenty of time. I would have preferred a separate thread, but I guess there's little enough traffic on this list so it doesn't really matter. There is a bit more then 3 week now. I would like to have this approved :) Are there any thing needed to finish this? http://www.radiotap.org/Standardisation johannes ping. Johannes, are you the one who says last word on standardisation for radiotap? No? I thought the link made that pretty clear. But since nobody poked holes in this and it's been a long time, I think you should probably just post this has been adopted now ... Or actually, go to step 5, preferably reposting it as a separate thread. johannes ___ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Re: [ath9k-devel] Standardisation - adding 2 bit STBC and Ness to MCS
Am 07.05.2013 15:55, schrieb Johannes Berg: On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 15:54 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 09:40 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: Am 02.05.2013 22:44, schrieb Johannes Berg: On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 16:34 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: With this I believe we have everything needed to start the 3 week comment period. Yeah, I guess there was plenty of time. I would have preferred a separate thread, but I guess there's little enough traffic on this list so it doesn't really matter. There is a bit more then 3 week now. I would like to have this approved :) Are there any thing needed to finish this? http://www.radiotap.org/Standardisation johannes ping. Johannes, are you the one who says last word on standardisation for radiotap? No? I thought the link made that pretty clear. But since nobody poked holes in this and it's been a long time, I think you should probably just post this has been adopted now ... Or actually, go to step 5, preferably reposting it as a separate thread. Simon, will you do it? You stared it and did most of the work... -- Regards, Oleksij ___ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Re: [ath9k-devel] Standardisation - adding 2 bit STBC and Ness to MCS
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 16:34 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: With this I believe we have everything needed to start the 3 week comment period. Yeah, I guess there was plenty of time. I would have preferred a separate thread, but I guess there's little enough traffic on this list so it doesn't really matter. There is a bit more then 3 week now. I would like to have this approved :) Are there any thing needed to finish this? http://www.radiotap.org/Standardisation johannes ___ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Re: [ath9k-devel] Standardisation - adding 2 bit STBC and Ness to MCS
Hallo all, http://www.radiotap.org/suggested-fields/MCS%20extension%20for%20STBC%20and%20Ness I have posted 3 patches on the proposal page (see Attachments): 1. A patch that applies to the Linux kernel v3.7-rc1 to collect the new STBC and Ness parameters from a wireless driver, and add them into the MCS radiotap field. 2. A patch to the Intel wireless driver in the kernel to collect STBC and Ness information. 3. A patch to wireshark to display STBC and Ness information. With this I believe we have everything needed to start the 3 week comment period. There is a bit more then 3 week now. I would like to have this approved :) Are there any thing needed to finish this? Beside, i have one question about how STBC work. According to differnet docs, i assume that: - STBC is done by sending, at least, two stream with same data in different order. - It means for me, that real use of STBC can be made only on MIMO hardware. - If 1x1 receiver indicates that it got STBC encoded frame, it dos not meant, it would be able to use redundant data from second stream. - There are fallowing STBC schemes: Alamouti’s STBC for 2 transmit antennas and orthogonal STBC for 3 and 4 transmit antennas. According to this information, what do we call 1,2 or 3 stream STBC? Since STBC should have minimal 2 stream, but in same time we have 1x1 and 2x2 hardware which able to receive and decode STBC stream i assume: - RX-STBC1 is for compatibility only. No data redundancy. - RX-STBC12 - can be used Alamouti’s schema with 2 streams. Mostly used method. - RX-STBC123 - is orthogonal schema and not widely used method. Since last method use wide spectrum to transmit data comparable to SISO stream, it makes almost no sense. But 3-stream method get optimal error corect in compare with 2 and 4 strea schemas. Do this assumptions correct? PS: My assumptions based on MIMO Space-Time Block Coding (STBC): Simulations and Results -- Regards, Oleksij ___ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
