From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-il1-x132.google.com (mail-il1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::132]) (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 021A23B29D for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 20:29:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-il1-x132.google.com with SMTP id x2so4779607ila.9 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:29:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MiPEG/94+yowis5JNpt6hJwOfX3lZDX92lzjVV3t34Q=; b=NckXqiE8XDzJ4mwOz8cgFd86xutCkKha3N8KlsGKHnWmUApxuLb4qMgNUnKDuKyGKB KWexYzdS2IKsycJsYiIcFjrz7EWCj4ihBZWzn66dkb0luPnDRnP2cUeK8j1zmOir3K7U smc2pY7y2rRiLH3VH0cV7Zw5N2rF+NVLeoTHD0IcJovF8VHUn0BL2UYjj1xch6xniNWf I9ZneniFdbRNQrIa4Myw4cpZ8HxYTuEee09+W3bwRObVVfnWLah+8/ezK8FY4Pw5w9Lv 6nyC4aPAhUvzbptuZYE3UQ9wD3WBPZfpzUAVcr2+CBoyEZO09XS6uAEDvVFEYi2mfkkm CFWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MiPEG/94+yowis5JNpt6hJwOfX3lZDX92lzjVV3t34Q=; b=YTg9AskP6T0v/EeUHwgGdSvwNDjC310t0egYwKmcHocdkh1IEwI625+ApBvZawYbf0 CHsQl3KPLna6qafEdIPuSD6gHaOGXGi8Em2ttx9ds9vC0PyZ8f/O+xIpbJoFUyD3Xloc v6sSrbBhI1rab+Q0deZAn5ZgYN/8c5lLCxBfHkwvcSQmqduARjGEe8oD5Ku4UMmngHGu V3L1/tKprHp7syUJdhXZbH5/7E2CXwk/f3gEFiZ26ttUTg5w4Fr9fqZmvD+drK+APrIp WvUgL8ea1eXKms04PFQ9KeTU391L2H7j41a1yze3joYVQ3smBbh+F/4sgccPnZFLoPv1 oQMw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU2mVXuj+5Rf/PKXeHXjGuxuTsy4+vA3E2rBImvbg3mr38jKDz2 Zp1fN/nP3roIxnp4qiCp040qOKoGsuch8ZlrgQ4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwckmXyZznIKYx2ExcGvuqTN7f3jSwamBTHqUMBfUpwQ9La6gM8TTpUsZTkCOeDqe8VOiMIVYCqxC56C8RQlag= X-Received: by 2002:a92:ba93:: with SMTP id t19mr7515701ill.0.1580434142381; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:29:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <69103D46-8F04-4468-802B-142CC2DABF0F@gmail.com> <0928D44A-4F3A-462D-854E-91B653E40B1C@gmail.com> <87a764ziiy.fsf@taht.net> In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:28:51 -0800 Message-ID: To: Bob McMahon Cc: Dave Taht , Rich Brown , Make-Wifi-fast Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Wi-Fi 6 - how many of our assumptions does it violate? 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, 31 Jan 2020 01:29:03 -0000 Are "RvR vs latency" tests part of any testing regime outside of google yet= ? http://flent-newark.bufferbloat.net/~d/Airtime%20based%20queue%20limit%20fo= r%20FQ_CoDel%20in%20wireless%20interface.pdf On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:20 PM Bob McMahon via Make-wifi-fast wrote: > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Bob McMahon > To: Dave Taht > Cc: Rich Brown , Make-Wifi-fast > Bcc: > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:20:09 -0800 > Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Wi-Fi 6 - how many of our assumptions does = it violate? > It's part of the reasons iperf 2.0.14 has so many new latency, trip-time,= start-time, connect, etc related features. Peak avg throughput is no longe= r a valid proxy for "performance." > > From a testing view, attenuation or range is no longer sufficient either.= Phase shifters are needed per things like VR/AR as truly optimizing the n= umber of spatial streams is needed too. > > The loss function(s) to be optimized (minimized) is far from trivial in b= oth the definition and in [re]-computing in "real-time" > > WiFi engineers have more work to do. > > Bob > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:28 PM Dave Taht wrote: >> >> Rich Brown writes: >> >> >> On Jan 24, 2020, at 9:06 AM, Rich Brown wro= te: >> >> >> >> I saw this overview of the now-in-testing Wi-Fi 6 at >> >> https://www.howtogeek.com/368332/wi-fi-6-what%E2%80%99s-different-and= -why-it-matters/ >> >> >> >> Its multiple MIMO streams and maybe talking to multiple devices at a >> >> time seem as if they might be outside the assumptions we use. >> > >> > It's worse than I thought. I just watched this explainer video from >> > ExtremeNetworks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DowBrkFk9afM >> > >> > If I understand correctly, they want the AP to solve a hard >> > (bin-packing) problem, in real-time, with unclear rules for maximizing >> > client goals (should the VoIP packet go first?). And no mention of >> > airtime fairness or latency... >> > >> > Or am I missing something? Thanks. >> >> No, they punted on these things in the design. >> >> > >> > Rich >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Make-wifi-fast mailing list >> > Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net >> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast >> _______________________________________________ >> Make-wifi-fast mailing list >> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Bob McMahon via Make-wifi-fast > To: Dave Taht > Cc: Rich Brown , Make-Wifi-fast > Bcc: > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:20:24 -0800 (PST) > Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Wi-Fi 6 - how many of our assumptions does = it violate? > _______________________________________________ > Make-wifi-fast mailing list > Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast --=20 Make Music, Not War Dave T=C3=A4ht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-435-0729