From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com (mail-ob0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) (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 793ED21F1A3 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:52:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 16so2200833obc.13 for ; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 05:52:40 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=+UoryEyRvMNCk2MLJyNEZUqLkBC/S8n05Qrx/Uikfq4=; b=evhJbD44G1epo3yvvB3sqJlLwZytykKEFv4IxIPdTau5ZzDoOpcGsXAUdgohWqR5cz tk7SeDgSo+RPQJIbIhZZ3dCJo/8UAjgLzzaR8gjtUC5oQX/80H++apNsbPJ+aidFbdvx qExjfB9LwjOXdlUM2RuSqx+o1ocV95Hdn5pBk3yf215z4AGcL2KiJE3NEmuD1Hw9VJUx zSIEXHrKQ2Ia/15ngdakeIay6vnWCQacqgnUIzQPjqF7J/YemHGRQ+VutLC9mnGV2278 Jauflu5lOPtBuWbkl3284KyR4G9/Nr6H1C9BH4LJxN7VQim2LiGiwOtVtBsif+EkN5Qh KqFg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.164.103 with SMTP id yp7mr48029920obb.74.1357739560651; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 05:52:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.82.73 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:52:40 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [77.65.47.165] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 14:52:40 +0100 Message-ID: From: Maciej Soltysiak To: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f64355635cc4204d2db60a4 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlmmTIaK2P2d8ITDuMsyjpatgg/+GLg7ztkUasTbULMHNp0Hj+A+6LOYZxPuvD2gOfzASRV Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] slightly OT: WMM 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: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:52:42 -0000 --e89a8f64355635cc4204d2db60a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, Aside from reducing buffers and changing the queue management tactics, we're still interested in QoS and that's why we have tc filters, iptables MARKing, etc. With regard to WLAN, what do you think about enabling or disabling WMM on WLAN NICs and ap/routers? Supposing that applications or other mechanisms to proper DSCP or layer 2 tagging this should allow WMM to further do the prioritization on layer 1, however I've read a WMM-enabled station is like 4 stations competing for medium time. Is that analogy justified? Is that good or bad in terms of delays incurred by signal quality? Regards, Maciej --e89a8f64355635cc4204d2db60a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
=C2=A0
Aside from reducing buffers and changing the queue management tactics,= we're still interested in QoS and that's why we have tc filters, i= ptables MARKing, etc.
=C2=A0
With regard to WLAN, what do you think about enabling or disabling WMM= on WLAN NICs and ap/routers?
=C2=A0
Supposing that applications or other mechanisms to proper DSCP or laye= r 2 tagging this should allow WMM to further do the prioritization on layer= 1, however I've read a WMM-enabled station is like 4 stations competin= g for medium time. Is that analogy justified? Is that good or bad in terms = of delays incurred by signal quality?
=C2=A0
Regards,
Maciej
=C2=A0
--e89a8f64355635cc4204d2db60a4--