Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Thoughts on tackling airtime fairness

[Luca Muscariello <luca.muscariello@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2479 bytes --]

LTE-U and LTE-LAA are basically the same thing.
They require a licensed anchor.
MuLTEFire does not.

All needs to have a listen before talk and some level of fairness.

All these are gonna give a lot better quality and capacity than 802.11.
Enough to push 802.11 improvement in the standard?

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Luca Muscariello
> <luca.muscariello@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > Correct, but in between that time and now a lot has been done in
> different
> > areas but not much on this point.
> > The fact that some part of the industry is looking at LTE-U is also
> because
> > 802.11 standard is not good enough.
>
> What do you think of LTE-LAA?
>
> I do think very strongly that actual usage of 802.11 can be made
> vastly more efficient, that we can use up a great deal of the mac
> currently being left unused, and schedule txops way more efficiently -
> and that I'd love to test with michal's patch set against the LTE-U
> tests cablelabs, etc which did
>
> 100 stations before (stock):
>
> http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/drr/10tothe5.svg
>
> after
>
> http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/drr/newcode.svg
>
> I became mortally opposed to LTE-U (lacking exponential backoff and
> ignoring sparse station behavior, as well as today's crappy wifi
> drivers - along with some very dubious benchmarks), but have not poked
> much into LTE-LAA.
>
> I freely admit to loathing the 802.11 mac, and IF LTE-LAA could be as
> open, accessible and usable to ordinary users as wifi was, would be
> more embracing of it.
>
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, 11 May 2016, David Lang <david@lang.hm <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 11 May 2016, Luca Muscariello wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's surprising that 802.11 standard never considered time fairness in
> >>> the
> >>> EDCF. A reason might be the time fairness might be enforced using the
> >>> PCF.
> >>
> >>
> >> to be fair, at that point the rate variation was 1Mb - 11Mb and wasn't
> >> expected to change much during use.
> >>
> >> David Lang
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Make-wifi-fast mailing list
> > Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net <javascript:;>
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Täht
> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3564 bytes --]