From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2a0c:4d80:42:2001::664]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96DAF3B29E; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 11:57:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1634745450; bh=rlt7vtvr133wyHBQShb5/RFXuk2sKTdfJfomsvbuSq4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=oW6yJAw1W9xEHqusYljd7IJJt7JZK5Il7G7yB3Z/X1keRpf5ARgkRBd+MvO3FzUdK XhcUpAt3G1HuvUPJ+Qpb3UWIdhuNnb8tne2Jq3N/gPVC74YOBPwac1IyFbTBgk+XMR f1+EHTOGYjsa1+LPC66rNkBqbgfbuwnWGDpVuVnGum5hGTuV4im4eGG6E38rqSV54c iBLy4SxYdWJ/ZVVtyrLbFgvZOZ1cuZsUzdcUiwdDO8XAn6zzJrapc0+hHbtKcevhcp nkDgK/Bn/we35NMhEYjS8Ah0crkdrUQK1xiAIOY4g3Alh+aH7/7RRqpNq2IvLHjetS +wVqMDgm4x3ww== To: Michael Welzl Cc: Dave Taht , Rpm , Make-Wifi-fast , Keith Winstein In-Reply-To: <2BE60847-5C04-4EF5-B1B1-F0A21581AB63@ifi.uio.no> References: <4BD0AC02-62FB-4AE4-B83B-BAF5CCEA2B24@ifi.uio.no> <87lf2of2sl.fsf@toke.dk> <09884015-6428-4402-BE61-9091006D1FB8@ifi.uio.no> <87ee8gf013.fsf@toke.dk> <87bl3jgbgb.fsf@toke.dk> <2BE60847-5C04-4EF5-B1B1-F0A21581AB63@ifi.uio.no> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 17:57:30 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <8735ovg045.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Rpm] [Make-wifi-fast] tack - reducing acks on wlans X-BeenThere: rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: revolutions per minute - a new metric for measuring responsiveness List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 15:57:34 -0000 Michael Welzl writes: >> On 20 Oct 2021, at 13:52, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: >>=20 >> Michael Welzl writes: >>=20 >>>> On 20 Oct 2021, at 12:44, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Michael Welzl writes: >>>>=20 >>>>>> On 20 Oct 2021, at 11:44, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Michael Welzl writes: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Am I being naive? Why can't such an ARQ proxy be deployed? Is it ju= st >>>>>>> because standardizing this negotiation is too difficult, or would it >>>>>>> also be too computationally heavy for an AP perhaps, at high speeds? >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Immediate thought: this won't work for QUIC >>>>>=20 >>>>> .... as-is, true, though MASQUE is still being defined. Is this an >>>>> argument for defining it accordingly? >>>>=20 >>>> MASQUE is proxying, right? Not quite sure if it's supposed to be also >>>> MITM'ing the traffic? >>>=20 >>> Wellllll.... I'm not 100% sure. If I understood it correctly, ideas on = the table would have it do this in case of tunneling TCP/IP over QUIC, but = not in case of QUIC itself - but to me, this isn't necessarily good design?= Because: =3D> >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> In any case, it would require clients to negotiate >>>> a proxy session with the AP and trust it to do that properly? >>>=20 >>> =3D> Yes. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> This may >>>> work for a managed setup in an enterprise, but do you really expect me >>>> to be OK with any random access point in a coffee shop being a MITM? >>>=20 >>> MiTM is a harsh term for just being able to ACK on my behalf. Some >>> capabilities could be defined, as long as they're indeed defined >>> clearly. So I don't see why "yes, you can ACK my packets on my behalf >>> when you get a LL-ACK from me" is MiTM'ing. I believe that things are >>> now all being lumped together, which may be why the design may end up >>> being too prohibitive. >>=20 >> Right, okay, but even setting aside the encryption issue, you're still >> delegating something that has potentially quite a significant impact on >> your application's performance to an AP that (judging by the sorry state >> of things today) is 5-10 years out of date compared to the software >> running on your own machine. Not sure that's such an attractive >> proposition? > > Depends - this is what explicitly signaling this capability could solve. > > Take TCP, for example: if I'm all hyped on L4S, I may not want to > delegate ACKing to an AP that doesn't support ACKing without support > for accurate ECN signaling. If I do MPTCP and see support from the > peer, then perhaps I don't want this capability at all. If I don't > care about these two things... well, then, ACKing hasn't changed very > much for several years. I may want to include some initial option > information in that signal, for the AP to relay - e.g. about window > scaling and such. I suspect that QUIC / MASQUE ACKing is also going to > stabilize somewhat at some point in time. Still a lot of complexity for something that (according to that TACK paper) is only a marginal improvement over what can be achieved end-to-end... -Toke