From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-x22f.google.com (mail-yw0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) (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 3ECB53B260 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 14:35:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id g133so51242015ywb.2 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 11:35:39 -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=oCVMy0yvcWTwxY4GabeSYsbTHSO0q66F6XzyuM2ZbQM=; b=ojg6bpd30AKP3icFeU1rgDbwQ3dh90rS+EftZeH/EiY91i5cwtJURx5A0QFzze7z26 HgGPbhEOXVKTF9K3Se9so84/Ai7yqF/almdv+i+EC7iLSv3Nit1zbhudzjDGu0eGuUTI tLKcRiV4u64hGKMW6GzoAGPMxbigQm7IW0slTVrX+Nob6yEUS6ToeEVFhwfy0vZYejfi bsd3WKNlLrRVTnsoVFytgpkc9xluo6orTBprwDrPYtsg0bFsTPKU7gU+kNTJBmtwbauz d2pK2eOudHdOhMYnIUsZxdG+6My69vcpnRlFqfEFMJ71hQiRBQ9skQ95udIf+22o1jPe pZdA== 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=oCVMy0yvcWTwxY4GabeSYsbTHSO0q66F6XzyuM2ZbQM=; b=WOs6LEjKO4tDO9pbkexmqtllpNz+dFJ+v1QoH966s+zfW6rZdMO6CnQHp5/pEtkTXF 9ynVGO030y25b2Rf7ci5Fv+3kycCi///1zonH3iCIiUKpn10VpjOJKmmkV0SgGHkyAv9 qNpDLdppSpwfIuhV9ZtLQFZM/Njj40x1EgqYaXM/YYsJMgtzWPQu4vTh80MhEspvEZU0 f/IQC8Defo6KPW0Nl3qPLSWb27o/fJD2xow3OkgMCmiGMXrXWKxBt772w/Wlq2ZMHtzt esmzTpZiWgxdnrk8S1N4Pfthc89rqC2jK30FygYWQIRDuElTD8veM7zfItilgzwBNzXE CkaA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW99BS9ZeqrGVYFGGP346ysMiZ8w+0B0SR8U8ePMQ7RYVleMglLutDgpTWpCQqu8A1KqKlxtY/9AIbdng== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.119.3 with SMTP id s3mr2340873ywc.287.1462991738756; Wed, 11 May 2016 11:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.74.134 with HTTP; Wed, 11 May 2016 11:35:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <871t58n5wk.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:35:38 +0200 Message-ID: From: Luca Muscariello To: Dave Taht Cc: David Lang , "make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11492eb6e603e60532954e2a 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 18:35:39 -0000 --001a11492eb6e603e60532954e2a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable to be fair I should say that these technologies are gonna be a lot more expensive than wifi. There is a good reason to keep wifi simple. On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Luca Muscariello < luca.muscariello@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 = in >> >>> the >> >>> EDCF. A reason might be the time fairness might be enforced using th= e >> >>> 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 >> > --001a11492eb6e603e60532954e2a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
to be fair I should say that these technologies are gonna = be a lot more expensive than wifi.
There is a good reason to keep wifi = simple.

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Luca Muscariello <<= a href=3D"mailto:luca.muscariello@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">luca.muscari= ello@gmail.com> wrote:
LTE-= U and LTE-LAA are basically the same thing.
They require a licensed anc= hor.=C2=A0
MuLTEFire does not.

All needs= to have a listen before talk and some level=C2=A0of fairness.=C2=A0
<= div>
All these are gonna give a lot better quality and capaci= ty than 802.11. Enough to push 802.11 improvement in the standard?


On Wednesday, 11 May 2016, Dave Taht <= ;dave.taht@gmail.c= om> 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> wro= te:
>>
>> 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.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.o= rg

--001a11492eb6e603e60532954e2a--