[Bloat] Re: Vol 185, Issue 5

["Douglas Goncz A.A.S. M.E.T. 1990" <DGoncz@replikon.net>]

Bob that's so right on

This is why I am experimenting with ethern et into USB converters now
they're pretty good if you've got a PC or even an Android but how about an
Alexa

I tried it and it works once but then I what I mean is I tried it once and
it worked that time the thing lit right up and Wi-Fi didn't make any
difference it was offline off off Wi-Fi is what it mean

I tried again and nothing happened but I think I was using a different
converter

Apparently what I had was some kind of protocol passing through USB from
ethernet where DHCP would reach the host using USB I think it's called
rndis something I used to use on my cell phone when they didn't even have
an internet wave at one like 2010

Wi-Fi congestion is worse than packages and if you miss me worse than
packet congestion and buffer bucking just before buffer cramming it's worse
it's just when you need it like an accident happens and everybody turns
into TV to find out what happened then you your phone to make a call to
report that you happen to know where it was and who needs help or some junk
like that it's ridiculous

LOL 90% of it is p*** anyway they say so why bother again laughingly

Mobile signature

On Sun, Sep 20, 2026, 15:30 <bob.mcmahon@umbernetworks.com> wrote:

> David is right that packets don't superpose. The useful math here is
> feedback control.
>
> The guitar amp is a useful analogy for feedback instability. A squeal
> occurs when the loop gain and phase satisfy the conditions for sustained
> oscillation. The amplifier keeps supplying energy to the loop, and the
> oscillation grows until nonlinearities and saturation bound it.
>
> Networks have feedback loops too. The delay through that loop is the
> RTT. Tail-drop synchronization, congestion-window sawtooths, and other
> oscillatory behaviors arise when multiple controllers react to delayed
> information about a shared bottleneck. That is why control theory is the
> useful toolbox here.
>
> The key state is at the bottleneck queue. Endpoints need a timely
> congestion signal derived from that state. Loss communicates congestion
> after the queue has filled far enough to drop a packet. ECN lets the
> bottleneck communicate that information earlier and more frequently,
> giving the senders time to adjust their rates while keeping the queue
> shallow.
>
> The difficult segment is the wireless last hop. AQM at an AP manages its
> queue, while contention arbitrates access to the air. Managing the air
> itself requires scheduling: grants issued from a point with enough state
> to make the decision, including wireless state across the relevant
> radios and bottleneck queue state.
>
> An 802.11ax AP has detailed state about its own BSS and can use trigger
> frames to schedule uplink transmissions within that BSS. Building-wide
> scheduling requires a broader view: the air state across multiple radios
> together with the forwarding and bottleneck queue state. The scheduler
> therefore belongs at the point where those two kinds of state come
> together.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On 2026-09-19 02:16, David Lang wrote:
> > Explain how you think this resonance would happen? unlike sound,
> > packets don't 'echo', they deliver messages, which can (and frequently
> > do) trigger reply messages but unlike audio resonance, the incoming
> > packets don't add to the outgoing packets to make a larger signal than
> > the outgoing packets would if the timing was a little difference.
> >
> > David Lang
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 19 Sep 2026, Replikon Research, D-U-N-S/FCN 77-387-4974 wrote:
> >
> >> There are two realms of analysis where things can blow up
> >>
> >> One is synergy and synergetics meaning the interactions between
> >> presumably
> >> interchangeable parts relevant to the interactions between presumably
> >> interchangeable routers and node points
> >>
> >> The other is combinatorics and that's my thing I love
> >> combinatorics!!!! The
> >> only thing that matters is what you choose to count and how much each
> >> part
> >> of what you count matters to you to put it concisely.
> >>
> >> So while I have very little to contribute I am encouraged to hear that
> >> the
> >> bottleneck is in the latency but the causes of the latency are
> >> multi-dimensional there are at least we know where the problem is not
> >> where
> >> that would mean we knew the causes no that's not right let me know is
> >> what
> >> the problem is yes the problem is latency
> >>
> >> What comes to mind is it for certain latencies there may be an echo
> >> like
> >> the feedback of a guitar when the amplifiers turned up too high
> >>
> >> Does that have any intuitional relationship to these very high level
> >> Network analyzes that you all do everyday
> >>
> >> This question of residence no not residents got darn it in the
> >> microphone
> >> resonance like my voice yes
> >>
> >> I think resonance and spectral radius are two characteristics of
> >> behind
> >> level network analysis which apply here to this question of latency
> >> because
> >> when spectral radius is one resonance is nearly inevitable
> >>
> >> Is the internet we have built evolving to an internet in which some
> >> parameterizable characteristic has a special radius of 1?
> >>
> >> I sure as hell hope not
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bloat mailing list -- bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >> To unsubscribe send an email to bloat-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bloat mailing list -- bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > To unsubscribe send an email to bloat-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>