Changes between Version 6 and Version 7 of Old/ControlChannel


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Feb 1, 2006, 5:07:08 PM (15 years ago)
Author:
zhibinwu
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Old/ControlChannel

    v6 v7  
    1818
    1919== Protocol Architecture ==
    20 The protocol architecture is shown in the following Figure [[Image(cca.PNG)]]
     20The protocol architecture is shown in the following Figure
     21[[Image(cca.PNG)]]
     22
     23== Some Comments ==
     24
     25 * Previous schemes only suggest two channels, one radio. This C2M needs 2 radios.
     26 * The performance improvement comes from a "shaky" assumption: RTS/CTS is sending in lowest rate. If RTS/CTS is in the same rate as DATA frames. The conclusion would be: little throughput improvement.
     27 * RTS/CTS is not mandatory in IEEE 802.11. In most scenarios, the benefits of RTS/CTS are fairly small. If the CS range is set to equal to interference range, the hidden node could be avoided without RTS/CTS.
     28 * Continue from above, is per-packet reservation a bad idea?
     29 * With a new digital channel, more comprehensive information could be transported in that channel, instead of per-packet reservation.
     30 * It is possible to put ACK in control channel for better spatial reuse (for receiving block problem....)
     31
    2132
    2233