Re: Correct radiotap header for 802.11ad

On Sep 17, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote:

> Not being familiar with DMG, I can't really comment on this.
> 
> It does sound like we need *some* new field though, be it either a DMG
> field or a PLCP SIGNAL field, or perhaps even both.
> 
> Going back to the original thread though, I think using the MCS field
> is quite wrong.

But a presumably-Linux system does appear to use it; see Wireshark bug

	https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16272

For now, I'll throw a hack into Wireshark to treat a signal >= 60 GHz as meaning 11ad, but, again, should there be additional fields for 11ad?