[Rpm] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] [Bloat] On FiWi

[Aaron Wood]

I like the general idea, especially if there was a site-wide controller
module that can do the sort of frequency allocation that network engineers
do in dense AP deployments today:  adjacent APs run on different frequency
bands so that they reduce the likelihood of stepping on each others
transmissions.

One of the biggest knowledge gaps that I see people have around wireless is
that it IS a shared medium.  It both is, and isn’t a bus.  Shared like a
bus, but with the hidden transmissions that remove the csma abilities that
get with a bus.

But the main issue will be deployment.  This would be great for commercial
buildings that get retrofitted every decade or so with new gear.

This will be near-impossible in the US except for new construction or big
remodels of existing structures.  The cost of opening the walls to run the
fiber will make the cost of the hardware itself insignificant.

OTOH, because the STAs aren’t specialized, the existing ones “just work”,
and so you don’t have the usual bootstrap issue that plagues tech like
zigbee and Zwave, where there isn’t enough infra to justify the devices, or
not enough devices to justify the infra.

-Aaron

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:21 PM Bruce Perens via Rpm <
rpm at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 5:11 PM Robert McMahon <rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com>
> wrote:
>
>> the AP needs to blast a CTS so every other possible conversation has to
>> halt.
>>
> The wireless network is not a bus. This still ignores the hidden
> transmitter problem because there is a similar network in the next room.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm mailing list
> Rpm at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
>
-- 
- Sent from my iPhone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/rpm/attachments/20230315/902fd670/attachment.html>