From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED9A821F8AC; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 22:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0744BA1; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:39:01 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1439185141; bh=hI2EXcfKMt2peqyFX6ucUFqTioz/5o1W82zjQxp19eQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ObtaokWt3V2qFcmhM+lGp7HMbsgQMiIXWdbcf3U3nczw/qW90xuT/4rkwKHnvEMbf n3L5s0RZ7RjeH8S9aW/g9zSaXKrPCZwE7f3Up/QFIDrXHYcjx97TtAkCil4uTmKNlN 1arX7hEq6WYiaR79LSs6NTb0V8DY9Fxlb8DiTGgw= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C389F; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:39:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:39:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: David Lang In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <356F5FEE-9FBD-4FF9-AC17-86A642D918A4@gmail.com> <5CC1DC90-DFAF-4A4D-8204-16CD4E20D6E3@gmx.de> <4D24A497-5784-493D-B409-F704804326A7@gmx.de> <1438361254.45977158@apps.rackspace.com> <6E08E48D-5D53-48E5-B088-2D1DB5E566AD@gmail.com> <1438983998.16576420@apps.rackspace.com> <1439066765.7348311@apps.rackspace.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [Cerowrt-devel] [tsvwg] Comments on draft-szigeti-tsvwg-ieee-802-11e X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 05:39:34 -0000 On Sun, 9 Aug 2015, David Lang wrote: > Just like wired networks benefit greatly from time-based queues rather > than packet count based queues, I think that wifi aggregation should not > be based on packet count (or even aggregate size) but rather the amont > of airtime that's going to be used (aggregate size * bit rate + > overhead) I have been involved in 3GPP networking. In for instnace LTE, you can tune the scheduler to allocate resources in multiple ways, for instance so that each user gets similar amount of transfered data/second, or they get access to equal amount of "airtime resources" (which is called TTI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Time_Interval), which is time slot and frequency divided in LTE (LTE has a lot of subcarriers (OFDM) and each subcarrier has 1ms TTIs)). Personally I favor the "airtime resource fairness", becuase that means a station with bad connectivity doesn't harm a station with good connectivity. I think it's also intuitive to people that if they have bad radio conditions, their network performance goes down. If you give everybody the same speed even though some needs a lot more airtime resource to attain that speed, that person will never know they're hogging resources and will never try to improve the situation. So if I understood you correctly above, my opinion is in agreement with what you wrote. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se