Talk:Hidden node problem

message: Section "Background": What are "adaptive acknowledgements"? NotInventedHere 12:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Logically, this picture is both wrong and makes no sense, because there is a case where there exists a union between A and B. Even-though there is a case where A union B exists, but only when A union B union C.
To be correct, there must be no cases where A union B intersect. If the A and B circles did not overlap at all, that would be better. 
Image:A_union_c_b_union_c.JPG
there is no case where A is union with B
Kassorlae (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that the actual nodes (the text labels) are not within the ranges of each other's signals (the circles), so cannot detect each other, though there exist points where both signals can be detected - such as the AP. It's not a Venn diagram :) -- Steved424 (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had the same hiccup in understanding as Kassorlae, which now that Steved424 explains it makes total sense. I'm trying to think of an alternative diagram method that doesn't imply a Venn diagram to the untrained (or tired) eye. Nothing comes immediately to mind. Perhaps an animated version might help? Frame 1: Show A & B -- successfully in range; Frame 2: Show B & C -- successfully in range; Frame 3: Show A & C -- oops! out of range. Repeat. --Ddrinnan (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Perfect? 

message: I agree with Cybotoro - who cares if the nodes (clients) cannot see each other?  They aren't talking to each other, they are talking to the AP.  And the AP has a buffer so that if he gets packets at the same time, they are queued, and not a problem.  I don't see a problem here.  What is the point of this article?
: The AP can't get packets at the same time, at least not from one network (= one frequency), assuming it's using an omnidirectional antenna. The two signals would interfere with other, just as they would on old-fashioned, bus-style coax Ethernet. As the comment above mentions, you could use two highly directional antennas at the AP, but unless you used multiple MACs you'd have to to choose only one to listen to at a time. -- Steved424 (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain 

message: 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) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in redirects 

message: My instructor insists that if links are varying (in the "transitional region") there is a greater risk of a hidden terminal problem. I think, by definition, that the htp is not related to varying links in any way. Htp is the principle that two nodes A and C both reach B, but since they don't reach eachother they carrier sensing will not prevent that there is a collision at B. A and C will just not know of that collision, unless B reports in one way or another. 
Of course, if transmission conditions are fantastic A and C might be able to hear eachother and then there will be no terminal problem. But the _varying_ part of it does not create hidden terminal problems, only bad signal conditions can contribute to that happening. It was part of an exam question "What does it mean for the MAC protocol that the link is in the transitional region?" And she expected us to answer (among other things) "hidden terminal problem". I disagree. The WP article does not mention anything of link qualities, and thus agree with my conception. Any comments? If I am wrong, then I guess it should be added to the article that varying link quality causes terminal problems. 
Maybe it should be explained with link assymetry, but link assymetry exists everywhere, also under conditions that do not vary. 
5.25.234.165 (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of varying link quality