From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out04.uio.no (mail-out04.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D0D33B29E; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 06:54:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-mx10.uio.no ([129.240.10.27]) by mail-out04.uio.no with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1md9Ea-00Ds77-GP; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:54:12 +0200 Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx10.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1md9EZ-0004sW-JV; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:54:12 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Michael Welzl In-Reply-To: <87ee8gf013.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:54:10 +0200 Cc: Dave Taht , Rpm , Make-Wifi-fast , Keith Winstein Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: 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> To: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx10.uio.no: 129.240.68.135 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=129.240.68.135; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=boomerang.ifi.uio.no; X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5) X-UiO-Scanned: D34E663C0B71E8796B4DAA107D058CB87517161A 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 10:54:18 -0000 > 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 = just >>>> 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? 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> > In any case, it would require clients to negotiate > a proxy session with the AP and trust it to do that properly? =3D> Yes. > 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? 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. Someone showed me a paper which lets such proxies ACK by reflecting = parts of the encrypted packet... I don't remember the title now and = don't have a pointer, but: it can be done anyway (if the sender is able = to parse these ACKs). Not being a part of the standard means nobody will = implement such a sender though. Cheers, Michael