From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0464E3BA8E for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:39:04 -0500 (EST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1512027543; bh=1nPdSQ9syawiwOo1J5F6Ir9D/n/I6e39ZbfKUfCRIJI=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=OvAgwgbQKQI4BPIMaRox9/BFka+ker7cYBuodq0LDGY0aJBgqX7VKvYriKDLW+mZ7 HmQonRoBry5c90MxsTV1EwZTN72k1imouULzAlPOSVwlsR2M7fRImOJNcjxa4zLtYD KgRjsSOFxa+Ze1pmPPW+ILx0TVUj9HUhrH9ETfKRtPMGZSgJZfvRbkRTB2iWVkxZzP 4K4psk5u9fP/x3KqEZhj2eXyIZiMpKaSbOCFDrZkACA6YYKPuXFdgmBNHT1kh3iUyp 57Lw/b4HxJavjtQ6jwPLR8IKOJuYWuRfFpCO8j0nPVUOXlgYrcCp3OcUnXp2KI0jRw TcRFS6g1+ttOQ== To: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:39:02 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87lgionrl5.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" Subject: [Make-wifi-fast] Fwd: Re: [iccrg] TCP behavior across WiFi pointers ? 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: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 07:39:05 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain The folks over at Meraki had a paper at this year's IMC talking about TCP over WiFi. -Toke --=-=-= Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on mail.toke.dk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SHORTCIRCUIT shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.4.1 Delivered-To: toke@toke.dk Received: from mail.toke.dk by mail.toke.dk with LMTP id aMuWOiN+H1oDNwAAOr1fkg for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 04:42:27 +0100 Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::2c]) by mail.toke.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58732248BE8 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 04:42:26 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: mail.toke.dk; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ietf.org header.i=@ietf.org header.b=XTQMfVP6 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B346128D0F; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:42:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1512013338; bh=M4tVorfIYVfgn9PeURgDCKG4N0AXvlOS1iAkfZjkFC4=; h=From:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Cc; b=XTQMfVP61eTudoCoP/VXMu0MI+jq43KYxPncZDoCBdg+oPDTURaGD3JFOAPa25/Ov pKDo8q9aZAYf8LbnkJIPSdxyJB51XgL+X4bBfyGsuPBmU5YD6+AX2EDHTl2KJtK1jC Li0bIQveang2C+xMRpw7oSaCo8nrsRPFzv5/cjmc= X-Original-To: iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail-pf0-f175.google.com (mail-pf0-f175.google.com [209.85.192.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B47E12773A for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:41:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-f175.google.com with SMTP id u19so2338866pfa.12 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:41:09 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=2d9VcCiqO+8dU0CQlXGIWYD1ZdPIRO01XL80ruGZUGg=; b=Wjnpah4+fwwp9AzBKEmcQ68h/LVQyNx2B/Rx4JGoYe65yHR4bIlEdqdC0+wDP7HXxb +/SX4adfdYjWCb9ZArAQ9kPT012OI8IIqjMlwl94Z3flYcyoctpj4nEhCYTsNkocYEMg HbQnPWf2Axfwk5DDBhhmHxwLVh1skdVnnEyRvX4zRwi4MFqiYUtcejUlsQmeC49g8do1 bKBxsezWQrpgrl6uTlqWM7B9R18giX3kqdM/rlB5Mkry02ExhJ48462wBmZb1TXZPMf9 alajQBhfSKQf5nifBk6uqkVxe7tEiDNEPUHf50m4pw97lkJjQ8LQUlUSz5FKfpQA9sIn c4xQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5HNLXGn+lnmFSeVzIAaYY1sLjweYp+9xRQAYI3lmIgHiTBqcEY RZNi0J5QUSk0mYuAWJgmuAA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaraGQG9xgB7xJWZaSOrnIpnuER/ilM1ie4p0OMtmYKXf9bscVr9WaMF4HRN3WDRF1XTwVdMQ== X-Received: by 10.101.80.76 with SMTP id k12mr702630pgo.32.1512002468361; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:41:08 -0800 (PST) From: Simon Barber Message-Id: <24D6C32C-DA17-4C91-89B5-E87DB87D16AF@superduper.net> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:41:04 -0800 In-Reply-To: To: Aaron Falk References: <20171108174247.GM19390@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [iccrg] TCP behavior across WiFi pointers ? X-BeenThere: iccrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussions of Internet Congestion Control Research Group \(ICCRG\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Toerless Eckert , iccrg@irtf.org, tsv-area@ietf.org, Michael Welzl , Mark Allman Errors-To: iccrg-bounces@irtf.org Sender: "iccrg" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====-=-=" --=====-=-= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="======-=-=" --======-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We=E2=80=99ve been doing some studies and work in this area at Meraki. https://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2017/papers/imc17-final203.pdf Simon > On Nov 29, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Aaron Falk wrote: >=20 > Hey Mark- >=20 > Didn't you do some work on TCP over wifi a while ago? >=20 > --aaron >=20 > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:33 PM Michael Welzl > wrote: > I would think that 1) there are probably pointers, and 2) the people who = have them should be on the ICCRG list, which I=E2=80=99m cc=E2=80=99ing. >=20 > I suggest for this to be the last email that includes tsvarea so that the= thread entirely moves to ICCRG. >=20 >=20 > > On Nov 8, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Toerless Eckert > wrote: > > > > Any pointers to work analyzing the differences in behavior when TCP is = run > > across WiFi as opposed to wired ? Especially with WiFi in the home ? > > > > I am primarily thinking that there could be a higher demand for > > TCP (end-to-end) retransmissions when using WiFi because the L2/WiFi > > local retransmissions are insufficient. And if so, what the characteris= tics > > of those end-to-end retransmissions is (would assume they would be larg= er > > than N msec, where N is whatever the L2/wifi protection window is, which > > unfortunately i don't know). > > > > Asking because we've got the poor "must-sit-in-back-of-the-bus" traffic > > called IP multicast that is not protected by L2/wifi retransmissions at > > all and now we're wondering if carrying it over TCP as a workaround > > could help, and therefore trying to educate myself on specific known > > issue left when running traffic over TCP over WiFi. > > > > If any other TSV or other WG mailing list might be a better place to > > ask. pls. let me know. > > > > Thank! > > Toerless > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > iccrg mailing list > iccrg@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/iccrg --======-=-= Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We=E2=80=99ve been doing s= ome studies and work in this area at Meraki.

=
https://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/20= 17/papers/imc17-final203.pdf

=
Simon


On Nov 29, 2017, at= 7:17 AM, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey Mark-

Didn't you do some work on TCP over w= ifi a while ago?

= --aaron

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:33 PM Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:=
I would think that 1) t= here are probably pointers, and 2) the people who have them should be on th= e ICCRG list, which I=E2=80=99m cc=E2=80=99ing.

I suggest for this to be the last email that includes tsvarea so that the t= hread entirely moves to ICCRG.


> On Nov 8, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de> w= rote:
>
> Any pointers to work analyzing the differences in behavior when TCP is= run
> across WiFi as opposed to wired ? Especially with WiFi in the home ? >
> I am primarily thinking that there could be a higher demand for
> TCP (end-to-end) retransmissions when using WiFi because the L2/WiFi > local retransmissions are insufficient. And if so, what the characteri= stics
> of those end-to-end retransmissions is (would assume they would be lar= ger
> than N msec, where N is whatever the L2/wifi protection window is, whi= ch
> unfortunately i don't know).
>
> Asking because we've got the poor "must-sit-in-back-of-the-bus" traffi= c
> called IP multicast that is not protected by L2/wifi retransmissions a= t
> all and now we're wondering if carrying it over TCP as a workaround > could help, and therefore trying to educate myself on specific known > issue left when running traffic over TCP over WiFi.
>
> If any other TSV or other WG mailing list might be a better place to > ask. pls. let me know.
>
> Thank!
>    Toerless
>

_______________________________________________
iccrg mailing= list
iccrg@irtf= .org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/iccrg

--======-=-=-- --=====-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ iccrg mailing list iccrg@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/iccrg --=====-=-=-- --=-=-=--