From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (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 7EC6A3B29E; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:37:46 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1634762258; bh=EOGsQt8ab7A+QTT7bRGpkMbOHZHbaEG8ybmOpmH6XFg=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=lAyM/82bBXMhhERPvC7LZfczSHogrxImCod0NIyTsZfmH+APTHnEMtbtrGrWZiI+H ppUDm7IFhLUnXw4FEEKUOXXD/yC6nEjz4hDcB+ZcGsnku7xhvF50Q1Wuk00H3Q+q3g 2oTZZLAa0m/+BRyIuAE/rQYzUXo3h5Q0d1Rj0w0w= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.42.229] ([77.1.148.90]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M5wLZ-1mbtQf2C8B-007Uef; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 22:37:38 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <878ryngbbe.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 22:37:37 +0200 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Dave_T=C3=A4ht?= , Rpm , Make-Wifi-fast , Keith Winstein Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <878ryngbbe.fsf@toke.dk> To: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:GRVkyDVgdvj/rkY22xa8vyPEA/t0gi8YppyGH9tjdlGVhnObRNv 6hMY9rSUg/Hi+4FXgLLdc9NkfO4YjA2SZ58SEMGxyew+n0R5yjFsfAyGZRWqXC02/gEIcMP OU3Lhc4zBosnKpQKAn8qi+V4yGwAe08Tg/jcmy7Lhw3VjXVlsvnBbBsXr3uGFFvnTA3n0Dw l5bzIXwcRQi44ouenCAqA== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:6GQbwb9xUT8=:z8vWN5YxyXzsAI/WdmPAFc DGW4ZOJn42rhMmINpdgrPGj2qTnHroJyS6C+I2Vmlqd/zoaj4qwdIVwhlj0R2bYDTH9TcMj67 P2LsveJcI98fI/4REvvlbcLvcUHcrIv10alshL3v+S9do6NevHhpKA4KAFc28u3NTuG+rbOBL dXIJ/Sy7GCAWwsD6Pmxa5knyveHT0Ml+U1OIcxphwHVnLJ1/TkIw0bdJqKZ7Nw1wYD8jha8Kf 0YNisWtsquCkEdgfxkqXYSadkuLEH4szeYaSPPjXxO9D3IEI5nibstbhTZavo2nCc1aNizm2T mdBTOGAAJkGr3a+q7pkoDOKUa95ruqYXtVROQvgPsMsv04s7z/NWT9V4Yd9yTxQno/9H2AwIA HYmOCE2ZICR6h6qPngLC3zaMO6LplvL0oNUI9CZXmiqH6mX6B7g2S+J+JjQlJtaG9Ie+UY1dv izId4sbJ9c7KJaKISAY2Mf9itgu5Y+jpKMJD3FfHYftCRhVOhq5TQUkFEXhhncMicTkzoyqrQ 7u0QOI4T4YogFSkPQuspe//0bUrY15gUHxIj3qGQ5CoIvZlMnH1HPHYfdXWP7yrm6uwWhxzHw oo1U/c/eHtl2mHKdJ1RB9f7tSmig8Mi+X7NhMgZwsscPr51+2yLTngiBfZQbKjcjQy37XMrtT Q9H0BoiBqA4Gf/JKALgbGOTBb6Ruzol9/SYUfukr01aND65IKQeFBI4bL7iQBYHkY/9zv+VoX scVAIcEf2hX3uyoSTVAuN43bQ+lmaI5hETNol8TLT2+klYk++rwq1qzregVmow1axz752eZzS Ub6TS7z4YL0fd/PN4Od+lJjxCnYmDaoJvRrpI3h/lHKYCWhpaD9Rynt7mpnqvX/aq16UU9nc0 5N2qj330aao8h6vvBo+Zm4tXrp1mPupiebUvKgYyNpB5jGU4Of0mSag/aqV9kiP+vfzxplPZ2 8HJeoi4U8UvJUQtLc7hxJM5G8y+uxj0tGfIsz0Y1d5bczC2lC/6SIRo9HhrLELuSetyYCNwf8 5kx8RgCCs304iVwCzkLs+K9oJiXrkS7pZ0jaOuQX9odA7sSr8gz5pfnZRpByDgC/WoYJ5XWuZ iIdN+ZGzqNccBo= 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 20:37:46 -0000 Hi Toke, > On Oct 20, 2021, at 13:55, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen = wrote: >=20 > Sebastian Moeller writes: >=20 >> 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)." >>=20 >> 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.... >=20 > 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 And here I thought their idea was to simply grab the "free" = Frequency band and use them for their paid services....=20 > 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 :) Well, if the price for a more effficient MAC is a central = controller, I guess trying to patch up the symptoms of the current MAC = is a much better strategy than I gave credit for.... ;) Regards Sebastian >=20 > -Toke