From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
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 B22213B29E;
 Wed, 20 Oct 2021 07:55:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023;
 t=1634730933; bh=JghA9GefjaUBoJx5NyBll5rel2Idke8HUKggAiL8r5M=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From;
 b=VI4B+6474nzH8qW7cRZfpYB4ymbsh53s+1dI7DZIcCYpQ52dsRhyMyn8VHLtS7RQY
 TFLmNe/wIclsVYlyDh5RT/+c8FX5Vw/d/zjx21iTizTyltZG7av8/utpVx5evT8KyW
 1O/EE/vAbulYS3yN28VWjKpNP5q0Bp0EnDe6ov0lZPo47azEaw2uTHediuzQjpU3Ed
 qd/6NGWDOTP6vAtue6Bnql6jeeVYd/uofs+3YCw5NCyoBtqL1Vz25rABCYzL/Fr0ly
 UudZ3XQIRXKOosk+WA47vObkESPplIQG0VQ/5mhgHvpfdMjqPDoAryPQJ3T27xBeSk
 DJJmLMdmEbwUw==
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, Dave =?utf-8?Q?T=C3=A4ht?=
 <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Cc: Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Make-Wifi-fast
 <make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Keith Winstein
 <keithw@cs.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <D464EE6A-CB65-41F0-BA70-BCFE4DA4ECC1@gmx.de>
References: <CAA93jw6Ktn3r413QYt3rA+B5aYFy=Ph359LtOoPEo+9buCtdbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <D464EE6A-CB65-41F0-BA70-BCFE4DA4ECC1@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:55:33 +0200
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <878ryngbbe.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
 <rpm.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/rpm>,
 <mailto:rpm-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/rpm>
List-Post: <mailto:rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:rpm-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm>,
 <mailto:rpm-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 11:55:34 -0000

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> writes:

> Just reading the introduction:
> "It is well-studied that medium acquisition overhead in WLAN based on
> the IEEE 802.11 medium access control (MAC) protocol [11] can severely
> hamper TCP throughput, and TCP=E2=80=99s many small ACKs are one reason [=
53,
> 69]. Basically, TCP sends an ACK for every one or two packets (i.e.,
> received-packet-driven) [7, 15]. ACKs share the same medium route with
> data packets, causing similar medium access overhead despite the much
> smaller size of the ACK- s [8, 31, 36, 50, 58]. Contentions and
> collisions, as well as the wasted wireless resources by ACKs, lead to
> significant throughput decline on the data path (see =C2=A73.2)."
>
> makes me wonder whether the proper solution would not be to exchange
> the WiFi MAC with something that is actually suited for existing
> traffic patterns....

Well, there are people who want to do that (replace the MAC); it's
called LTE-U: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_in_unlicensed_spectrum

I'd much rather keep the WiFi MAC, thankyouverymuch. It may suck (for
certain values of "suck"), but at least it doesn't impose a centralised
controller on you :)

-Toke