Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] closing up my make-wifi-fast lab

[bkil <bkil.hu+Aq@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2263 bytes --]

Full-duplex still needs some work, but there is definite progress:
http://www.ti.rwth-aachen.de/~taghizadehmotlagh/FullDuplex_Survey.pdf
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/TR-1.pdf
https://sing.stanford.edu/fullduplex/
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/wireless/new-full-duplex-radio-chip-transmits-and-receives-wireless-signals-at-once
http://fullduplex.rice.edu/research/

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:46 PM Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > On 27 Aug, 2018, at 10:11 pm, Bob McMahon <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I guess my question is can a WiFi transmitting device rely on primarily
> energy detect and mostly ignore the EDCA probability game and rather search
> for (or predict) unused spectrum per a time interval such that its digital
> signal has enough power per its observed SNR?   Then detect "collisions"
> (or, "superposition cases" per the RX not having sufficient SINR) via
> inserting silent gaps in its TX used to sample ED, i.e. run energy detect
> throughout the entire transmission?  Or better, no silent gaps, rather
> detect if there is superimposed energy on it's own TX and predict a
> collision (i.e. RX probably couldn't decode its signal) occurred?  If
> doable, this seems simpler than having to realize centralized (or even
> distributed) media access algorithms a la, TDM, EDCA with ED, token buses,
> token rings, etc. and not require media access coordination by things like
> APs.
>
> The software might be simpler, but the hardware would need to be
> overspecified to the point of making it unreasonably expensive for consumer
> devices.
>
> Radio hardware generally has a significant TX/RX turnaround time, required
> for the RX deafening circuits to disengage.  Without those deafening
> circuits, the receivers would be damaged by the comparatively vast TX power
> in the antenna.
>
> So in practice, it's easier to measure SNR at the receiver, or indirectly
> by observing packet loss by dint of missing acknowledgements returned to
> the transmitter.
>
>  - Jonathan Morton
>
> _______________________________________________
> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3290 bytes --]