From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23D4E3B29E for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 09:57:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id z203so13464243qkb.5 for ; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 06:57:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NMerdA247KN7hqyysB7bRaEpJLvudn3h1LxtIaw2SiM=; b=odTe2JCN91OxISfuNUmGPaWqHvz8Tjsj3EGWxi0OIfHxfDlncZl3GkSZOWLKxuFF2/ b7AeA62tO4ih9kTV5SnfNO/5YSffHHTZkDGhFN5+x+JZK27udqsYIrHnaeBM+4xtpu4v mbxKbWMvI6medTfoTw5Os07keX1oJA+YMTfsl14nmz3RDTTo2Cswl3fUSBY/7tooeU4G qypxwb2HusO7YxOIjBqrylUUzEmevWPUo9xfTwfMDCt6bpltfinlpdjO051olYEUwHRW 2WvvbMaHVVuAbQLaR5n5UMBOBp8ZYIjKeHewasEwN1h97q0ScpdO9b+f8Pj/B1EWLSSq Gx2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NMerdA247KN7hqyysB7bRaEpJLvudn3h1LxtIaw2SiM=; b=e5xL0b+YsJxCe8ID+8mrNdS9XsBhASQfdBTIej6rfBrxpBIkK35Q4rt0tp/q6zS3EX LXj0J6/8glxaE9WaCkrtAt+RsfITfOhHVdshBj0UeUoI66PHT2tF6ssDVf6RQzVbgviX UBy2O+KBendlbpEg8+P9knNRIq5/PCrtsYJyXt7Z+BhgfdvIvQ9Zp17oOT2BvSzyRkqP PiH71HhjDui2FxPsZy7W4+zu/+5JtQUEAN84zSuf9gmxeT1KV0ka4QMhfJiH6TRYwVEP xmJftonVPawgsnlYGRPazY89RXC5+uDKhAYwzTiWXtCcflvL99iwuG0a52ZiyHRcMrfW EK6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKplhHBcBvSlqftW8bgGWEqN3heGH/HHAd0YPj3sDedSffqmUZC adu1J0euu8QxN/6zg615e0eqCrgvGmU4SrMDn/o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMY/oYUynIN+YKkaeym8ehX7hlgA16xLpUwRnPAAT6Ni5a/xW+pG2licPlYx4qYFY6LjKRaBnLw8n44fH6VRZko= X-Received: by 10.55.165.129 with SMTP id o123mr7705855qke.8.1512140250684; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 06:57:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.193.93 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 06:57:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87374u4nsc.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87lgionrl5.fsf@toke.dk> <87po80407u.fsf@toke.dk> <97FED3CC-CFF8-47EE-987B-81771EDB6128@superduper.net> <87374u4nsc.fsf@toke.dk> From: Dave Taht Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 06:57:30 -0800 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Cc: Simon Barber , Jonathan Morton , make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:57:31 -0000 On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: > Simon Barber writes: > >> Certain things, yes, others - not so much. No congestion control for >> example. It=E2=80=99s very much the common case that the wireless client= is >> the TCP endpoint, and it=E2=80=99s rare to see drops, but they do happen= . >> FastACK keeps the TCP ACK rate controlled by the wireless bandwidth, >> unlike a proxy. This is the key innovation here. > > Right, actually went and read the paper now. Seems clear enough; a few > questions, though: > > - From figure 12 it looks like you are also implicitly doing ACK > compression? I.e., if you get two packets with seq n and n+1 you will > only send an ACK back to the sender for n+1? https://github.com/dtaht/sch_cake/blob/cobalt/sch_cake.c#L902 might be worthy of review. > - Did you measure the latency impact of FastACK? You mention you will do > that once it's deployed, but does that mean you didn't measure this at > all in the testbed? > -Toke --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619