From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7163B3B2A4 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 02:45:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id E31D4B2; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 08:44:58 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1543995898; bh=kqjW4D2WIQaqFHsQAcpSGNPgz6fnN0YgRoPekpMNUgo=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VcxRPI8yxBh8sS8Jj4rzRbPX5mIpP6hoNVoSSxTY0Xx9v1sGiaa8eDyINJtgoe9cG Yz28pGFormRT8aTm4hj6BHlHoONjR8snw8KQHtCgQwZ9GHAZIWfeArL2Wnucx/8Xy7 i/hGBMx16k8h1x2fJShLZCljSm5+hiKqWrNQNkng= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0FCEAF; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 08:44:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 08:44:58 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht cc: cerowrt-devel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] dlte 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, 05 Dec 2018 07:45:00 -0000 On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Dave Taht wrote: > I expect dave reed to comment, so I'll withhold mine for now > > https://kurti.sh/pubs/dLTE-Johnson-HotNets-2018.pdf When I read the first page I was hopeful, then unfortunately I got disappointed and just quickly scanned the rest. It's still tunneled and the same architecture, just more distributed. I'd prefer if the device had two radios and could handle its own handover for most traffic. Most traffic today is streaming video so when you want to do handover just attach to the new radio, get new address, deprecate the old address, open new connections using the new address/radio close connections based on the old address, and move on. Traffic that needs to be always the same can be tunneled, but most traffic has no need for this. My guesstimate is that 90-95% of traffic doesn't need mobility and doesn't need to go via some tunnel to some core-node. It's also frustrating to talk "wifi" with mobile people, because they conflate "wifi" into multiple things at once. For me it's just that people want well working wireless access, and they couldn't care less how they get it. The more seamless the better. In that aspect this proposal is kind of neat in that I could make my residential radios join a larger network (similar to eduroam). So yes, I think this proposal has some merit. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se