From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-x22d.google.com (mail-yw0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22d]) (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 15B643B260 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 14:28:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id t10so57354358ywa.0 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=5grxkRZgmIhrT1d7170UpqvoAriOqgskPM3s2WRxwgw=; b=dEA7dFBBExmX6Cn8RunM4XkIBQxEVd2id0tZUlwhjB+Rlat+AbU/tEUOqRvIYzGXuk eAtQI1wd9WHEYs0w1qgHhnN9l6rsTPvq+C8Ibt8rF28WhPUggm6lqe9dGH6i7HGH+WpI qwD2+EVDE6ljFL8LXugDyxVS7khwK5lzhnGRWi+Hz+8M4vT2l71cxbe9/z9ai85yct1P PTkW8nwSxjOnw24UQwD0D05tU/HoRsf1KZz82xrOC3B2Ugp31s+O7/QAiA4HPdDuHHRQ WEuw7Fl5yKpmLAumq3esQhTJG1P1tMDawF8nRU/8WGW5hVVQxR9PfYWxyeJ9Zro/rosC VOTA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=5grxkRZgmIhrT1d7170UpqvoAriOqgskPM3s2WRxwgw=; b=YW3zMri9krU59eXVgiKhDhAnz+YKhAzRpcbTm5hRZTcXkKsww3PuRSR2kZ9wd04KZI WqycpJ9Vis0Z2Tl4SLzk9a3EZdF9FhD+7M565Q7HpSOLGuJmnXXYHeIi36WE2ykeFpZn ly/33kY1sdA7DobeQ3j4oJMxqJmItaw3wpOK3QmHwRZpcO1YK2rSIqSpIoj/5TbkPhnc wSQT4gy8Ttmm1eacc3vP+sHNIwc+kH2QZHzA8poBdjZ8u73Ma8xCKX5jrZZ00PrhtuDr o4k9crdmE/dLkdiFaIUaIJUWg7fVVdYL6CipiSaURqz9hx2nrKldmcQPu35+iD/D7C9W RBbA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUVYnIkvtLLPrFZ13BfPJNMi4CU3gt3YtpAolUMOhAHyY4Wcj250FBTKciCb/oExeJSR6HzYH8S3rKHzQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.119.3 with SMTP id s3mr2323781ywc.287.1462991287610; Wed, 11 May 2016 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.74.134 with HTTP; Wed, 11 May 2016 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <871t58n5wk.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:28:07 +0200 Message-ID: From: Luca Muscariello To: Dave Taht Cc: David Lang , "make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11492eb601fa4c053295341e Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Thoughts on tackling airtime fairness 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, 11 May 2016 18:28:08 -0000 --001a11492eb601fa4c053295341e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Luca Muscariello > > 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 > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 11 May 2016, Luca Muscariello wrote: > >> > >>> It's surprising that 802.11 standard never considered time fairness i= n > >>> 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 > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast > > > > > > -- > Dave T=C3=A4ht > Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! > http://blog.cerowrt.org > --001a11492eb601fa4c053295341e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable LTE-U and LTE-LAA are basically the same thing.
They require a licensed= anchor.=C2=A0
MuLTEFire does not.

All n= eeds to have a listen before talk and some level=C2=A0of fairness.=C2=A0

All these are gonna give a lot better quality and ca= pacity 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> wrote:
> Correct, but in between that time and now a lot has been done in diffe= rent
> areas but not much on this point.
> The fact that some part of the industry is looking at LTE-U is also be= cause
> 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> 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 us= ing the
>>> PCF.
>>
>>
>> to be fair, at that point the rate variation was 1Mb - 11Mb and wa= sn't
>> expected to change much during use.
>>
>> David Lang
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.n= et
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>



--
Dave T=C3=A4ht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.o= rg
--001a11492eb601fa4c053295341e--