An evaluation of IEEE 802.11 MAC layer handoff process in CAPWAP centralized WLAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing demand to provide secure wireless connectivity, especially in hot spot areas such as conference halls and events, motivated the development of Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Point (CAPWAP) centralized Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN). The centralized WLAN utilizes an Access Controller (AC) to simplify configuration, management, and control of Wireless Termination Points (WTPs) in large scale deployment of a wireless network. In order for the clients to associate and reassociate to WTPs, scanning and authentication phases are performed. The contributed latency during scanning and authentication phases, in the MAC layer handoff process, makes it difficult to support realtime applications that are sensitive to network latencies. This work simulates the effect of using different scanning and authentication methods in CAPWAP centralized WLAN during MAC layer handoff process. This can be considered as a significant contribution since no prior work has been done, to our knowledge, to simulate the handoff latency components in centralized networks. This work also studies the effect of varied propagation environments including isolation, and indoor and outdoor environments on handoff process. Moreover, the effects of employed WTP type and the client movement speed on the handoff process latency have been analyzed. Keywords: Handoff, CAPWAP, Scanning, Authentication, Centralized Network.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".