From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-x22a.google.com (mail-la0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D04A21F524 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id pv20so11543908lab.15 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:52:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=eZzUcgcumUeWjN6NRe12BCqECDnzGy2i+byDVOKaEPA=; b=QwwKTqrtZ4W9qxADhLtOP/ZksI9GPq5xSfU4CCVyVa2lF6eqUy/3NIOB+2dluPwCXy MQH/CCM0cOWYwP7UifC9ylvxg1sCE7IbemHzJGPoqm/bZNFgZunuVGMQEsKLWvrusGmR LOyl3c0E4dYKX1p8y5Br2IWp2Ug4eJKCiBFhePqc8Q1Nib3jGa9KymIDl4QJJdHim7uf +B66bn2xZ+l3w8yZAi/UybIMQDXf+W8XTWFIN0nnPYUvw4Beu28q+CkWY31FCDpFaCN1 AClGA6txNIQemS3v7WNxv13GCxWzXQvngz5Ra28YBIq5OX779pvS9n8HfzboCGYU3YmN N8Cg== X-Received: by 10.112.48.103 with SMTP id k7mr12886424lbn.32.1408852377876; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bass.home.chromatix.fi (178-55-89-211.bb.dnainternet.fi. [178.55.89.211]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u6sm21273202laj.7.2014.08.23.20.52.56 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <20140824034935.7D41E406060@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 06:52:54 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <479FD3FF-BBA8-4FB8-916E-C637F2CB1980@gmail.com> References: <20140824034935.7D41E406060@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> To: Hal Murray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] sigcomm wifi X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 03:53:01 -0000 On 24 Aug, 2014, at 6:49 am, Hal Murray wrote: >>> Yep... I remember a neat paper from colleagues at Trento University = that >>> piggybacked TCP's ACKs on link layer ACKs, thereby avoiding the = collisions >>> between TCP's ACKs and other data packets - really nice. Not sure if = it >>> wasn't just simulations, though. >=20 >> that's a neat hack, but I don't see it working, except when one end = of the >> wireless link is also the endpoint of the TCP connection (and then = only for >> acks from that device)=20 >=20 > That could be generalized to piggybacking any handy small packet onto = the=20 > link layer ACK. >=20 > Of course, then you have to send back a link layer ACK for the extra = info. =20 > Does that converge? No, you don't. If the link-layer ack (plus payload) didn't get through, = the other end will (usually) retransmit the frame anyway. So you don't get recursive acks. :-) - Jonathan Morton