[Cerowrt-devel] threads, 6lowpan

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Luca Muscariello
<luca.muscariello@gmail.com> wrote:
> to be fair I should say that these technologies are gonna be a lot more
> expensive than wifi.

at first. With sufficient volume any technology can succeed.

> There is a good reason to keep wifi simple.

With something like 400 dsps required in 802.11ac wave1?

802.11b. Now that was simple. We'e come a long way from spark gap
transmitters. :)

In other news, I am both glad and nervous to hear that more of 6lowpan
is seeing the light of day. I have not yet found a board to try yet
(anyone have recommendations?), and would like to see what happens
with these transmitters around also.

http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/11/googles-nest-open-sources-openthread-to-snag-more-iot-partners-take-on-amazon/


>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Luca Muscariello
> <luca.muscariello@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> LTE-U and LTE-LAA are basically the same thing.
>> They require a licensed anchor.
>> MuLTEFire does not.
>>
>> All needs to have a listen before talk and some level of fairness.
>>
>> All these are gonna give a lot better quality and capacity than 802.11.
>> Enough to push 802.11 improvement in the standard?
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 11 May 2016, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Luca Muscariello
>>> <luca.muscariello@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Correct, but in between that time and now a lot has been done in
>>> > different
>>> > areas but not much on this point.
>>> > The fact that some part of the industry is looking at LTE-U is also
>>> > because
>>> > 802.11 standard is not good enough.
>>>
>>> What do you think of LTE-LAA?
>>>
>>> I do think very strongly that actual usage of 802.11 can be made
>>> vastly more efficient, that we can use up a great deal of the mac
>>> currently being left unused, and schedule txops way more efficiently -
>>> and that I'd love to test with michal's patch set against the LTE-U
>>> tests cablelabs, etc which did
>>>
>>> 100 stations before (stock):
>>>
>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/drr/10tothe5.svg
>>>
>>> after
>>>
>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/drr/newcode.svg
>>>
>>> I became mortally opposed to LTE-U (lacking exponential backoff and
>>> ignoring sparse station behavior, as well as today's crappy wifi
>>> drivers - along with some very dubious benchmarks), but have not poked
>>> much into LTE-LAA.
>>>
>>> I freely admit to loathing the 802.11 mac, and IF LTE-LAA could be as
>>> open, accessible and usable to ordinary users as wifi was, would be
>>> more embracing of it.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wednesday, 11 May 2016, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, 11 May 2016, Luca Muscariello wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> It's surprising that 802.11 standard never considered time fairness
>>> >>> in
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> EDCF. A reason might be the time fairness might be enforced using the
>>> >>> PCF.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> to be fair, at that point the rate variation was 1Mb - 11Mb and wasn't
>>> >> expected to change much during use.
>>> >>
>>> >> David Lang
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>> > Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Täht
>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>
>



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org