From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out04.uio.no (mail-out04.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E4B23B29E; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:21:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-mx10.uio.no ([129.240.10.27]) by mail-out04.uio.no with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1mdAah-00E2Y3-73; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:21:07 +0200 Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx10.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1mdAag-00028J-B8; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:21:07 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Michael Welzl In-Reply-To: <87bl3jgbgb.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:21:05 +0200 Cc: Dave Taht , Rpm , Make-Wifi-fast , Keith Winstein Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2BE60847-5C04-4EF5-B1B1-F0A21581AB63@ifi.uio.no> References: <4BD0AC02-62FB-4AE4-B83B-BAF5CCEA2B24@ifi.uio.no> <87lf2of2sl.fsf@toke.dk> <09884015-6428-4402-BE61-9091006D1FB8@ifi.uio.no> <87ee8gf013.fsf@toke.dk> <87bl3jgbgb.fsf@toke.dk> To: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx10.uio.no: 129.240.68.135 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=129.240.68.135; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=boomerang.ifi.uio.no; X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5) X-UiO-Scanned: DB0B86DB5C815AC77D5C69538337EE8A31BBCCE3 Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] tack - reducing acks on wlans X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:21:11 -0000 > On 20 Oct 2021, at 13:52, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen = wrote: >=20 > Michael Welzl writes: >=20 >>> On 20 Oct 2021, at 12:44, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen = wrote: >>>=20 >>> Michael Welzl writes: >>>=20 >>>>> On 20 Oct 2021, at 11:44, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen = wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Michael Welzl writes: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Am I being naive? Why can't such an ARQ proxy be deployed? Is it = just >>>>>> because standardizing this negotiation is too difficult, or would = it >>>>>> also be too computationally heavy for an AP perhaps, at high = speeds? >>>>>=20 >>>>> Immediate thought: this won't work for QUIC >>>>=20 >>>> .... as-is, true, though MASQUE is still being defined. Is this an >>>> argument for defining it accordingly? >>>=20 >>> MASQUE is proxying, right? Not quite sure if it's supposed to be = also >>> MITM'ing the traffic? >>=20 >> Wellllll.... I'm not 100% sure. If I understood it correctly, ideas = on the table would have it do this in case of tunneling TCP/IP over = QUIC, but not in case of QUIC itself - but to me, this isn't necessarily = good design? Because: =3D> >>=20 >>=20 >>> In any case, it would require clients to negotiate >>> a proxy session with the AP and trust it to do that properly? >>=20 >> =3D> Yes. >>=20 >>=20 >>> This may >>> work for a managed setup in an enterprise, but do you really expect = me >>> to be OK with any random access point in a coffee shop being a MITM? >>=20 >> MiTM is a harsh term for just being able to ACK on my behalf. Some >> capabilities could be defined, as long as they're indeed defined >> clearly. So I don't see why "yes, you can ACK my packets on my behalf >> when you get a LL-ACK from me" is MiTM'ing. I believe that things are >> now all being lumped together, which may be why the design may end up >> being too prohibitive. >=20 > Right, okay, but even setting aside the encryption issue, you're still > delegating something that has potentially quite a significant impact = on > your application's performance to an AP that (judging by the sorry = state > of things today) is 5-10 years out of date compared to the software > running on your own machine. Not sure that's such an attractive > proposition? Depends - this is what explicitly signaling this capability could solve. Take TCP, for example: if I'm all hyped on L4S, I may not want to = delegate ACKing to an AP that doesn't support ACKing without support for = accurate ECN signaling. If I do MPTCP and see support from the peer, = then perhaps I don't want this capability at all. If I don't care about = these two things... well, then, ACKing hasn't changed very much for = several years. I may want to include some initial option information = in that signal, for the AP to relay - e.g. about window scaling and = such. I suspect that QUIC / MASQUE ACKing is also going to stabilize = somewhat at some point in time. Cheers, Michael