TUN/TAP interface advantage

Is there any advantage to use TUN/TAP interface ?
As 802.11bbn also uses TUN/TAP interface.
But I think in the tun/tap performance degrades as we send the packet
back
to user process?
Therefore I compare results with benchmark_xx.py in /ofdm with
tunnel.py
in /ofdm.
In results benchmark_xx.py do not give consistent throughput (i.e. it
varies on channel) but tunnel.py gives 100% throughput irrespective of
channel
Will there be any valid reason for this ?
If I want to implement 2-way communication in USRP should I use TUN/TAP
interface?

On 09/15/2012 11:45 PM, usrp n210 wrote:

Is there any advantage to use TUN/TAP interface ?

Tun/tap is a convenient way to get access to the network stack from
userspace. Unfortunately the benchmark* apps abuse tun/tap as a mac
layer, which is precisely the wrong thing to do.

For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#TCP_over_wireless_networks

(if you wait a few days, there will be some sweet work released with MAC
layer + message passing in GRC. Stay tuned…)

-josh

Cool.
How can I get this information at that time?

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Josh B. [email protected] wrote:

to user process?


Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio

–

Alex,
Dreams can come true just believe.

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs