From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (unknown [66.167.227.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 537B33CB35 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 02:03:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-laptop.LAN (dlang-laptop.LAN [10.2.0.162]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788E085FA6; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 23:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 23:03:24 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang-laptop To: Etienne Champetier cc: bloat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.1 (DEB 209 2017-03-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [Bloat] Dual Channel Wi-Fi 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: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:03:25 -0000 it's an optimization that will work well when there is only one person using the network, and utterly collapse when there is a lot of use. it assumes that 'high priority' and bulk things only move in one direction, it uses more channels, which will cause more collisions with other users and other networks. a fairly typical type of idea to someone who doesn't look at what's actually happening at the RF level. David Lang On Fri, 13 Sep 2019, Etienne Champetier wrote: > Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:47:38 +0900 > From: Etienne Champetier > To: bloat > Subject: [Bloat] Dual Channel Wi-Fi > > I'm curious what people on this mailing list think about this Wi-Fi > optimisation > > https://www.cablelabs.com/technologies/dual-channel-wi-fi > https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/9972 >