Re: MCS field: RFA
Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.netbsd.radiotap |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 17:36 +0000, Bill Stafford wrote: > Omitting the Rate field seems like the most logical, but does not > help out legacy parsers. I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced we should try to define this, some implementations might not want to have a rate table for MCS rates, for example. > But on the upside, it is helpful for wireshark > filters like "radiotap.datarate < 48" when you are trying to see > any traffic that falls below 24 Mbps for example. That would exclude any packets w/o the rate field as well, because of the way filters work when fields are not present. johannes
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 801 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAABAgAGBQJLaGzuAAoJEODzc/N7+QmagOUP/1MVGCA5QAzhU4H1tr68y0fX e5Z8K9EhrSsYUBVIEl6hm01KWhxH7RVZPnJez7zUptDc9DgIbGhZTRkGvuPDQSCx RmG15IHWU0SfSYAK89d7Qiz4j43Z4o2RGVM/tbHtQmZJLUtIck0PAv4cVEvLJUDy BCT3B1rwg6co1C9nZhV+gktTXLGD/dBcU3vw2ST66eIh/TEGd6Z21vFhIU0v2oxt gqYmOxz39YO0m/H+skkLR4w+85Iwaz4qi/xIqBlMf6DwDAbIQuVEG6zFZf1jdk0I Lk+AEGaCL1QjzQTJtlozX+WrFnrVOc8f8ontNj44cqY6X+PuWx+5xdO3oXQo1Mxo mzINKliYSMEHFTUeUrNLmFsV4s8OonWsu2rmjFRbykY/2FK9GSYu9or1UbjkHBFb OWEAmxurBdq6ZIaj764H0PuwqBWpXZkYwIZH0XMyAfBPZWz+IEpgXka1YnSsL+nm usm+tBf+btxSfG+IUAfmNwGD8hpJF0Qg0V4+qYmMOrFCChpa4rA/2A08j2YfJYSR ZshuLmXVTWaw54valsYjKcg0cJO6qEEqdexEUBQwRap/YAKGitWtcFN4XrsEAjq0 0u9Np0mVe/Nxe42pc/AQ5d7hX29Y+WgNyWYAUDuAIBdObXBDEOSgyMoaQHVdw7jV 0kvKH+CiWoS7NyvedYN/ =e1+Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----