From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x233.google.com (mail-oi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]) (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 DC9693B260; Wed, 11 May 2016 15:37:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x233.google.com with SMTP id v145so84998511oie.0; Wed, 11 May 2016 12:37:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tMYFM3eQ+xdjGkL1bcv5Uu5Bh3wTFUGBSBuC4Ab+ebM=; b=Fp9/IREqBPipvqZ5wUShf0JmLFIMXU0Yko3631weAvij+KoryhhcrSLBfgfbfXRsgL 8qdUCpJ6vUlgHdTPlSmiBAWlEXZJ6tXGVMAfShSeMs9oAJejmm/DxUVnqDDeYRUB36qf KBfxIt7zH4v9Ba61OGJx/mYltSRbAfcYw5Bz8Ra2oAIP6GhCzSs4W+9dl8Cz3tFsGJge StqGYPKMdPCH8ahJMtQ+4wYWJpKY13WipydRzH/YLdCvo5iieq0rITwgxRv1OQTCPtCa 61LYYjie6mjq+EFofNd7m/c0uo5YevapKiQc4EfcSTrIwpmrbNJKbYWby64CgTxix918 +rWw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tMYFM3eQ+xdjGkL1bcv5Uu5Bh3wTFUGBSBuC4Ab+ebM=; b=X4kfI/WyApyj6bvXlBXg8xBHA1iRo2oU9uN7ZWNeY1lWkwPg+x9JnoQ+0PALxPfn+X PVmOigFThRD4ONzUFNMjyovUvnxbtcCAlhrJ0q+lemsw/6a8egm1N05mSdg+4K07D8Vm oheBUqyoac0PytlIk4tMCFolZbdZkNd9QvNwsfwynit8rcRGqQrDPr+bWNMeDEbaECZl KAXlZR4V8maOGm20y/47gvr4L8ucxzb9p8+OeTQ23Qhx1EeFX0AcnmSXTzHu5t1oPQVS KxlXKEFrFoU6XdKqMmN4HIIPMXGO0JHsTPPVtY0y7gAJCSY43OMu/1AYriUPzyXruuGE kEyw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV/KLffWpI4XJpaEWdpS5m/8n40MpQFy53onQjQqTz38qLGjeUz+9141DBHVhwswdrc5zx94ufTeggWfA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.157.59.69 with SMTP id z63mr3422967otb.154.1462995459340; Wed, 11 May 2016 12:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.229.210 with HTTP; Wed, 11 May 2016 12:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 12:37:39 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Luca Muscariello Cc: David Lang , "make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] threads, 6lowpan X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:37:40 -0000 On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Luca Muscariello 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-sn= ag-more-iot-partners-take-on-amazon/ > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Luca Muscariello > 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 wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Luca Muscariello >>> 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 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 t= he >>> >>> 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 T=C3=A4ht >>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! >>> http://blog.cerowrt.org > > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! http://blog.cerowrt.org