Talk:Exposed node problem

The case explained here has a flaw in the statement:

"the exposed node S2 should be allowed to transmit in a controlled fashion without interfering with the on-going transmission between S1 and R1."

Unless "controlled fashion" means transmit for a short period so by the time R1 sends an ACK to S1, S2 is done transmiting to R2.

pterigion@hotmail.com

--67.121.106.211 07:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposed_node_problem... and one should have a redirect to the other.

jeroen.trappers @ gmail.com

--134.58.253.131 13:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"If the nodes are not synchronised the problem may occur that the sender will not hear the CTS or the ACK during the transmission of data of the second sender."

this is slightly ambiguous. the intended statement is probably: "If the nodes are not synchronised the problem may occur that the first sender will not hear the CTS or the ACK during the transmission of data from the second sender."

or, the names S1 and S2 could be used. still, it is not clear that this is the correct description of the implementation. there is no explanation for why a sender would be listening for an ACK.

-- jon 23:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Which node is the exposed terminal?
I am learning a bit more about Wi-Fi, and I was wondering which node in this scenario is classified as the "exposed terminal"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Inconsistency in redirects
Exposed node problem redirects to Exposed terminal problem, but Hidden terminal problem goes to Hidden node problem. The pattern should be consistent. 129.93.154.192 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

MACAW is not IEEE 802.11
The article refers to MACAW for the CTS optimisation. But MACAW is not IEEE 802.11 and I cannot find this optimization in the IEEE 802.11 standard. Can somebody add a correct reference to the real standard or otherwise remove the claim? 93.130.121.119 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong assumption?
I would suppress the second part of the article. It seems to assume that interfering and transmission range are the same. This misconception was addressed in Xu et al. "Efectiveness of RTS/CTS handshake in IEEE 802.11 based ad hoc networks". Jbarcelo (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)