It really doesn't help that everyone in the industry is pushing for higher bandwidth for a single host. That's a nice benchmark number, but not really relevant int he real world. Even mu-mimo is of limited use as most routers only handle a handful of clients. But the biggest problem is just the push to use wider channels and gain efficiency in long-running bulk transfers by bundling lots of IP packets into a single transmission. This works well when you don't have congestion and have a small number of clients. But when you have lots of clients, spanning many generations of wifi technology, you need to go to narrower channels, but more separate routers to maximize the fairness of available airtime. David Lang On Sun, 1 Sep 2024, Bob McMahon via Starlink wrote: > Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2024 18:15:11 -0700 > From: Bob McMahon via Starlink > Reply-To: Bob McMahon > To: Dave Taht > Cc: David Fernández , > Make-Wifi-fast , > Dave Taht via Starlink , > bloat , > Dorothy Stanley > Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Make-wifi-fast] bloat on wifi8 and 802.11 wg > > There is a lot of confusion on the 802.11 latency technology options. I > think waiting for Wi-Fi 8 to solve this is a non starter. Solutions have to > work for 20B devices already in the field. > > The silo'ing hasn't helped here. Those that cross the silos are needed by > my judgment. It means deep dives into 802.11 which now is a 25 year old set > of standards. Those with 25 years of 802.11 standards expertise are as rare > as hen's teeth and are worth their weight in gold. > > Bob > > On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 8:35 AM Dave Taht via Make-wifi-fast < > make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >> I wish I had gone to the 802.11wg more regularly than I did. I only >> gave one bloat related presentation in 2014, shipped the >> make-wifi-fast code in 2016(?), and never went back. IETF ate all my >> money and time. I just assumed they were all in the slipstream of >> linux and openwrt. :/ >> >> I did have a great meetup a few weeks back with the former 802.11 >> chair (dorothy stanley, hi!!!) who is trying to recruit people to >> participate in the wifi8 standard and perhaps some finishing touches >> on wifi7. She gave a great update on the status of things at the >> recent wifinow conference, but as there is a cost to that, perhaps she >> can share her slides with us? >> >> >> https://wifinowglobal.com/product/wi-fi-world-congress-usa-2024-sarasota-florida-presentations-pdf/?mc_cid=beb1b4a2ed&mc_eid=327a64ba92 >> >> On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 8:28 AM Livingood, Jason via Bloat >> wrote: >>> >>> Dropping Starlink as Bloat is the right list. The IEEE 802.11 domain is >> certainly different than IP, so typical IP CCs don’t apply. In our L4S/NQB >> trials, we put LL-marked packets into the AC_VI WMM queue in the Wi-Fi >> network. IMO there is more work in 802.11 to focus on latency – so much >> focus right now is on throughput over everything else. >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Starlink on behalf of >> Rich Brown via Starlink >>> Reply-To: Rich Brown >>> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 at 07:33 >>> To: David Fernández >>> Cc: starlink , bloat < >> bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> >>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Bloat] L4S >>> >>> >>> >>> Let's split this thread and use this message to continue the discussion >> of L4S. Thanks >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 8, 2024, at 5:31 AM, David Fernández via Starlink < >> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I see that L4S is not really solving everything (I read about issues >> with Wi-Fi), although it seems to be a step in the right direction, to be >> improved, let's hope. >>> >>> >>> >>> At least, Nokia is implementing it in its network gear (for mobile >> operators), so the bufferbloat problem is somehow acknowledged by industry, >> at least initially or partially. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have seen two consecutive RFCs to 9330: >>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9331 >>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9332 >>> >>> >>> >>> I suspect that optimal results require the bufferbloat to be addressed >> not only at network layer (IP), but also with some pipelining or >> cross-layering at link level (Ethernet, Wi-Fi or any other link technology, >> such as 5G, SATCOM, VHF...) >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> David F. >>> >>> >>> >>> Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 08:46:03 -0400 >>> >>> From: Dave Collier-Brown >>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem >>> Message-ID: <3d6bdccf-e3d1-4f62-a029-25bfd1f458f5@indexexchange.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >>> >>> It has an RFC at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9330/ >>> >>> I read it as a way to rapidly find the available bandwidth without the >> TCP "sawtooth". The paper cites fc_codel and research based on it. >>> >>> I suspect My Smarter Colleagues know more (;-)) >>> >>> --dave >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2024-05-07 08:13, David Fernández via Starlink wrote: >>> Is L4S a solution to bufferbloat? I have read that gamers are happy with >> it. >>> >>> Sorry, I read it here, in Spanish: >>> >> https://www.adslzone.net/noticias/operadores/retardo-videojuegos-nokia-vodafone >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> David F. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Starlink mailing list >>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bloat mailing list >>> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat >> >> >> >> -- >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVFWSyMp3xg&t=1098s Waves Podcast >> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos >> _______________________________________________ >> Make-wifi-fast mailing list >> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast > >