[Starlink] [Cake] [Make-wifi-fast] [Cerowrt-devel] Due Aug 2: Internet Quality workshop CFP for the internet architecture board

[Bob McMahon]

Thanks - your wording is more accurate. The path loss matrix is hollow
symmetric while the RF channel is reciprocal.

The challenge comes when adding phase shifters. Then it's not just a path
loss matrix anymore.

Bob

On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 10:04 PM Dick Roy <dickroy at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces at lists.bufferbloat.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Bob McMahon
> *Sent:* Monday, August 2, 2021 8:23 PM
> *To:* David Lang
> *Cc:* starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net; Make-Wifi-fast; Cake List;
> codel at lists.bufferbloat.net; cerowrt-devel; bloat
> *Subject:* Re: [Starlink] [Cake] [Make-wifi-fast] [Cerowrt-devel] Due Aug
> 2: Internet Quality workshop CFP for the internet architecture board
>
>
>
> The distance matrix defines signal attenuations/loss between pairs.
>
> *[RR] Which makes it a path loss matrix rather than a distance matrix
> actually.*
>
> It's straightforward to create a distance matrix that has hidden nodes
> because all "signal  loss" between pairs is defined.  Let's say a 120dB
> attenuation path will cause a node to be hidden as an example.
>
>      A    B     C    D
>
> A   -   35   120   65
>
> B         -      65   65
>
> C               -       65
>
> D                         -
>
> So in the above, AC are hidden from each other but nobody else is. It does
> assume symmetry between pairs but that's typically true.
>
> *[RR] I’m guessing you really mean reciprocal rather than symmetric. An RF
> channel is reciprocal if the loss when A is transmitting to B is the same
> as that when B is transmitting to A. When the tx powers and rx
> sensitivities are such that when combined with the path loss(es) the “link
> budget” is  the same in both directions, the links are balanced and
> therefore have the same capacity. *
>
>
>
> The RF device takes these distance matrices as settings and calculates the
> five branch tree values (as demonstrated in the video).
>
> There are limitations to solutions though but I've found those not to be
> an issue to date. I've been able to produce hidden nodes quite readily. Add
> the phase shifters and spatial stream powers can also be affected, but this
> isn't shown in this simple example.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 8:12 PM David Lang <david at lang.hm> wrote:
>
> I guess it depends on what you are intending to test. If you are not going
> to
> tinker with any of the over-the-air settings (including the number of
> packets
> transmitted in one aggregate), the details of what happen over the air
> don't
> matter much.
>
> But if you are going to be doing any tinkering with what is getting sent,
> and
> you ignore the hidden transmitter type problems, you will create a
> solution that
> seems to work really well in the lab and falls on it's face out in the
> wild
> where spectrum overload and hidden transmitters are the norm (at least in
> urban
> areas), not rare corner cases.
>
> you don't need to include them in every test, but you need to have a way
> to
> configure your lab to include them before you consider any
> settings/algorithm
> ready to try in the wild.
>
> David Lang
>
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021, Bob McMahon wrote:
>
> > We find four nodes, a primary BSS and an adjunct one quite good for lots
> of
> > testing.  The six nodes allows for a primary BSS and two adjacent ones.
> We
> > want to minimize complexity to necessary and sufficient.
> >
> > The challenge we find is having variability (e.g. montecarlos) that's
> > reproducible and has relevant information. Basically, the distance
> matrices
> > have h-matrices as their elements. Our chips can provide these
> h-matrices.
> >
> > The parts for solid state programmable attenuators and phase shifters
> > aren't very expensive. A device that supports a five branch tree and 2x2
> > MIMO seems a very good starting point.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 4:55 PM Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/2/21 4:16 PM, David Lang wrote:
> >>> If you are going to setup a test environment for wifi, you need to
> >> include the ability to make a fe cases that only happen with RF, not
> with
> >> wired networks and
> >>> are commonly overlooked
> >>>
> >>> 1. station A can hear station B and C but they cannot hear each other
> >>> 2. station A can hear station B but station B cannot hear station A 3.
> >> station A can hear that station B is transmitting, but not with a strong
> >> enough signal to
> >>> decode the signal (yes in theory you can work around interference, but
> >> in practice interference is still a real thing)
> >>>
> >>> David Lang
> >>>
> >>
> >> To add to this, I think you need lots of different station devices,
> >> different capabilities (/n, /ac, /ax, etc)
> >> different numbers of spatial streams, and different distances from the
> >> AP.  From download queueing perspective, changing
> >> the capabilities may be sufficient while keeping all stations at same
> >> distance.  This assumes you are not
> >> actually testing the wifi rate-ctrl alg. itself, so different throughput
> >> levels for different stations would be enough.
> >>
> >> So, a good station emulator setup (and/or pile of real stations) and a
> few
> >> RF chambers and
> >> programmable attenuators and you can test that setup...
> >>
> >>  From upload perspective, I guess same setup would do the job.
> >> Queuing/fairness might depend a bit more on the
> >> station devices, emulated or otherwise, but I guess a clever AP could
> >> enforce fairness in upstream direction
> >> too by implementing per-sta queues.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ben
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
> >> Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> This electronic communication and the information and any files
> transmitted with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and
> may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected
> by privacy laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If
> you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering
> the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
> copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of
> this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
> please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and
> destroy any printed copy of it.
>

-- 
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
destroy any printed copy of it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/attachments/20210807/254d1de3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4206 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/attachments/20210807/254d1de3/attachment-0001.bin>