From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DEE53B2A4; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 00:20:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (107-137-68-135.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [107.137.68.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 4824KTXA018463 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 1 Sep 2024 21:20:30 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sonic.net; s=net23; t=1725250831; bh=kQxFI1KLa3RNQBN3F+aRnDec6PdOEuZUE6OrdbW8Kbw=; h=To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Date:Message-Id:From:Subject; b=bbJncZRAZnQD/hhfv7O+WsDBcEOpBUBkR1Y7wq99JFQKlHyuXjez3Svv5L7VUjNpz SAIvgeKhqsJAdkeLXol8b6GJXroYd2acfUaEHrOmvNWvAYZE2SldhMIJqVhMrOx5Ia raJMV4YCQrAm1QAKK8b91JqaDKV3EWfT9Y8O4jqqc7GOxxas++CM3ycLdDkJZc8wU1 WJdE3LMQ0waRRIN6TwFV2YkpWR0nczp40spZ+H9I6JJmua08pOHoo2PxX3TG63IV5o rb0ItNUXXf9Q6rR7k/8GGNHmB6fDCeuHPw0eIDcE9DsHjthCO3rKZxkNmZmvHKXTB5 5OtIu8i3hZPhg== Received: from hgm (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7E3620054; Sun, 1 Sep 2024 21:20:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.8 To: Make-Wifi-fast , Starlink , bloat cc: Hal Murray From: Hal Murray In-Reply-To: Message from David Lang via Make-wifi-fast of "Sun, 01 Sep 2024 19:59:43 -0700." <0p31n75o-9o83-o9q6-1315-2os9p65450s5@ynat.uz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 21:20:24 -0700 Message-Id: <20240902042024.8A7E3620054@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVansr6Wa4cRpncES+3CctDF5y2Qq9okdEpUsrVMrTGAb3/XDWCsRr5YB5EQO87j+dG63vZJbw14tAALNkomedpv20OmMHjpV/s= X-Sonic-ID: C;bBwhsOJo7xG1Ra5Sr7edkQ== M;/olOsOJo7xG1Ra5Sr7edkQ== X-Spam-Flag: No X-Sonic-Spam-Details: -1.5/5.0 by cerberusd X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 13:23:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Make-wifi-fast] [Starlink] bloat on wifi8 and 802.11 wg X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 04:20:32 -0000 David Lang said: > It really doesn't help that everyone in the industry is pushing for > higher bandwidth for a single host. That's a nice benchmark number, but > not really relevant int he real world. > Even mu-mimo is of limited use as most routers only handle a handful of > clients. > But the biggest problem is just the push to use wider channels and gain > efficiency in long-running bulk transfers by bundling lots of IP packets > into a single transmission. This works well when you don't have > congestion and have a small number of clients. But when you have lots of > clients, spanning many generations of wifi technology, you need to go to > narrower channels, but more separate routers to maximize the fairness of > available airtime. What does that say about the minimal collection of gear required in a test lab? If you had a lab with plenty of gear, what tests would you run? How many different tests would it take to give reasonable coverage? -- These are my opinions. I hate spam.