From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (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 AE4D13BA8E for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id i124so25025178wmf.3 for ; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 12:05:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SVo0ERM7cMAHnykKIdvaR3lj7gZv5jfwQgQNYerbXF0=; b=Y2QXhgwy4sHsu5gBcjQGi9zM3r5cvlHAm87wUcWDbx7P8aGYYEpq+wRNF2AH5Vo2vW AO3DVoiTTIs2TsqV7iWPR73MRur5pHGOQnBOw3LEr3G2mZPaXfEJrCPV0QYZJHNvQUBl TEJACb8WekcsxJzLYRZzyAu33SIj79ybxuYwWRW+3yipWqgwq3LXmTyYVuTTm6NhjaS6 MJckhH7NZH9lFv5fDcFaBpEfq8Fmzf6HJR8TwbKVAYgOL33BSoZF1HpvrRWGgz/4aOp7 4WYlXWdbY9jKlw+Yrmd3i7iNYqWSJgl3+mlof5g39mVv5WJOr9PdlGExnrNpBqQMbgh9 wKQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SVo0ERM7cMAHnykKIdvaR3lj7gZv5jfwQgQNYerbXF0=; b=dMxu+fNkJhsI8sxW/cAx66WhXNBPplO19mnm8/j/JIOn60CZEikAWi7HLXjfOvxkpN aA54sbbPENBic7fATlZq1Aes7e/aGoqi93hzLTJa/hyTNwObqabHde5q1tO28w3F8rjY yU7UdZi2C/oSadb5oxKjZfV3v2R0PRlDcyol7pam13ITlPsg76cga3V49Tanft4uDWrw 13thCM/YdcqvZrMg+m9fBdUjBdup3Af8EHTnxVL7CVLzMIleOuTzQD/R9k8+Mz3zL+g5 /RLFZb+wSi313N/Et3BPZ/s08T3oEOFZsN/61rUsfUvFisPwf+wdKyZ1EWXlCeLY63fK kcLA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVTSnTi/WZR2swqdNADs2SdaYPgwfwTOVWTgX0Mh1DK90sfMlcm zgzy2H5GQAgBdqkOXd/QLCQJ6ajPA35++yUliwI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDHBt3H9wWS348VVGJGKbwm93dOPM2xfe1spqOkPKrFFwtWuui6PXi5li0PsCvG29dbF3UAggX6UK5154QIMZQ= X-Received: by 10.223.184.140 with SMTP id i12mr9475541wrf.31.1507575923930; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 12:05:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.163.214 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:05:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87376s6z5z.fsf@nemesis.taht.net> References: <1507534912438.44276@telenor.com> <87376s6z5z.fsf@nemesis.taht.net> From: Andrew Shewmaker Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 13:05:03 -0600 Message-ID: To: Dave Taht Cc: erik.taraldsen@telenor.com, bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f57746af9e2055b21dfdd" Subject: Re: [Bloat] emulating non-duplex media in linux qdiscs 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, 09 Oct 2017 19:05:25 -0000 --f403045f57746af9e2055b21dfdd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > > writes: > > > Half duplex is the term you are looking for > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplex_(telecommunications) > > "A duplex communication system is a point-to-point system composed > of two connected parties or devices that can communicate with one > another in both directions." > > wifi is not p2p, all data is broadcast to many potential recievers, > only one can transmit at one time. > > Saying that is half duplex, doesn't work for me. In their example of > "half duplex", (using push to talk), it still means that everybody on > that channel hears who is talking. "half duplex" to me, given the > definition of duplex, means more that there is a *p2p* channel (a wire), > that you can ping pong data across. > > This conflation of ideas has always bugged me and I've longed to find > another word that more accurately describes what happens, therefore > I've been saying "non-duplex". Isn't wi-fi adequately described as a combination of frequency and time domain multiplexing? In my mind, "multiplex" would be better than " non-duplex", since using the latter could reasonably be interpreted as "anything not duplex". -- Andrew Shewmaker --f403045f57746af9e2055b21dfdd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Dave Taht <dave@taht.net> wrote:
>
> = <erik.taraldsen@telenor.co= m> writes:
>
> > Half duplex is the term you are look= ing for
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplex_(telecommunications)
>
> "A duplex communication system is a point-to-point = system composed
> of two connected parties or devices that can commun= icate with one
> another in both directions."
>
> wi= fi is not p2p, all data is broadcast to many potential recievers,
> o= nly one can transmit at one time.
>
> Saying that is half duple= x, doesn't work for me. In their example of
> "half duplex&q= uot;, (using push to talk), it still means that everybody on
> that c= hannel hears who is talking. "half duplex" to me, given the
&g= t; definition of duplex, means more that there is a *p2p* channel (a wire),=
> that you can ping pong data across.
>
> This conflatio= n of ideas has always bugged me and I've longed to find
> another= word that more accurately describes what happens, therefore
> I'= ve been saying "non-duplex".

Isn't wi-= fi adequately described as a combination of frequency and time domain multi= plexing? In my mind, "multiplex" would be better than "non-duplex",= =C2=A0since=C2=A0using the latter could reasonably be interpreted as "anything not = duplex".


<= br>
--
Andrew Shewmaker
--f403045f57746af9e2055b21dfdd--