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 TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 272923B25E; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 03:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4F520A2; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:24:42 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1476516282; bh=C9/4GvFPTFhqHYsYKCwGEoVOeUHc+CH5jt/E6wi5PlQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=j9UA49zCoCYBQAGk1rRJ6D0zbZDYjaKpdldlijjteAzP9NwaOaVUoHlwIY89ZXJiv pn2CrqEvyfpfX75O69Iu0oaYAkhgYKoiq182vzAYhO0yjIxgD/SB6Ok7wTyc4m803S g8rZr2lz5Y+TdgCbSHsnBEaMIvG5gMgZG8RDxIEI= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40EA2A1; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:24:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:24:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: 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 Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [Bloat] the wifi airtime-fair fq_codel stuff on net-next looks mostly good 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: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 07:24:44 -0000 On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Dave Taht wrote: > http://openwrtsummit.org/#quick-details I've had the discussion with "radio guys" before regarding "fairness" of radio resources. They kept talking about "optimising the cell for throughput". I told them "then we should give the speaker with the highest bitrate and demand for bits as much radio resources as possible, and starve everybody else". This is of course not good for general customer satisfaction. After a lot of discussions back and forth, we came to the same conclusion as you seem to have come to (if I understood Tokes talk correctly), in that "radio time" is the most fair resource. If someone has bad radio conditions then they get lower total throughput than the one with good radio conditions, so the fairness is "equal air time". This means everybody get equal part of the shared resource, and gives people an incentive to try to improve radio reception if they have trouble, and doesn't starve everybody else of airtime just because one device is having a bad radio day. So full support for this approach from me, good job! -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se