From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-iy0-f171.google.com (mail-iy0-f171.google.com [209.85.210.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B084200373 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 04:09:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by iaen33 with SMTP id n33so3992269iae.16 for ; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 04:09:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gI4kZistS3QnxLVi6wQM0jVJjtVi5AfDHnJbii7/gtQ=; b=rq2seKH6H85EKNbU2w2oHMiNAB0ajIxjx7KkBlMddpFnnRsfCZAlBhpcpnHn483AFr iADN7kbS8Ub+iRUthzDIXg/edpjrG7yAslzxy9+t5k2CCM7iNEDxUXGe2wVML+F8meMa 320WcVx0F/+rNRF2+gmVTaGTVek2nTF3J6QBc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.151.4 with SMTP id c4mr3152380icw.39.1323346159021; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 04:09:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.204.83 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 04:09:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 13:09:18 +0100 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: david@lang.hm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Coping with wireless-n [#305] X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:09:19 -0000 On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:51 PM, wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Dave Taht wrote: > this puzzles me. > > splitting 2.4G and 5G into different different networks (broadcast domain= s) > is a huge win. cince I can't find any open implementation fo band steerin= g, > this requires putting the two bands on different SSIDs. Oh, god no, I'm not dropping that. Having those split AND off the wired network is staying in... > but I don't understand why there is a big problem with G and N sharing th= e > same SSID. Because you can fully FQ G, and if you do that to N, it messes up aggregati= on. > > there is some Some? > grief with having different speeds on the same channel, but > only in that the same amount of data will take longer to transmit (causin= g > problems with predicting how long the queue is in terms of time as it wil= l > vary on the destintation), but even if you stick with G for example, it c= an > transmit at 54, 48, 36, 24, 18, 12, 6, 1 Mb/s. adding N just adds some > higher speeds to this. If the devices are configured sanely, they should = be > transmitting the header for a G frame to reserve the air time and then > sending the N frame inside of that. this has a slight overhead compared t= o a > pure N network, but it doesn't matter if the G network is on the same SSI= D > or on a different one, the problem is sharing the airtime on the channel. It's a packet scheduler test more than anything else. > David Lang --=20 Dave T=E4ht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 FR Tel: 0638645374 http://www.bufferbloat.net