Jalil Moraney
changed
bug 8594
| What |
Removed |
Added |
| Attachment #12078 Flags |
|
review_for_checkin?
|
Comment # 25
on bug 8594
from Jalil Moraney
Created attachment 12078 [details]
802.11ad patch v7
On Michael's patch I did the following:
1) Fixed a problem with the header length of the new control frames.
2) Fixed a problem with the DMG Beacon frame to meet the format of other
frames.
3) Changed the dissection of 802.11 Extension frames to meet the convention of
the 802.11 Management frames.
4) Removed the Macro IS_80211AD and replaced it with a call to p_add_proto_data
to save the need of traversing the whole tree each time we need to check for
DMG thus traversing once per packet.
(In reply to comment #24)
> The intent is presumably to distinguish 60 GHz packets from other packets.
Indeed.
> There's no guarantee that an 802.11 packet will have radio metadata, and,
> even if it does, there are several different types of radio metadata that
> could be present.
But as far as I could tell, checking the channel frequency is the only way to
distinguish DMG packets. If there is no radio metadata, how else could this be
achieved?
> The only things the dissector appears to do differently for 60 GHz packets
> ("directional multigigabit", or "DMG") and other packets are:
>
> adding expert info warnings about some types of packets that shouldn't
> be sent by 60 GHz STAs;
>
> labeling the sender MAC address of a CTRL_CFP_END control frame;
>
> dissecting the TAG_TSPEC tag differently.
True.
> Perhaps the dissectors for radio metadata should pass to the 802.11
> dissector some data that indicates, among other things, whether the frame is
> a 60 GHz frame. If no such information is passed, the 802.11 dissector
> should assume the frame isn't a 60 GHz frame.
Honestly, I don't know how this could achieved. Any other options? If not I
would need some help with this one.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.