From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (unknown [66.167.227.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5487D3B29E for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 14:01:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-laptop.local (unknown [10.2.0.162]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0EDFECEB; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:01:01 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang-laptop To: "Rodney W. Grimes" cc: David Lang , "David P. Reed" , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <202107131239.16DCdq6D058102@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Message-ID: References: <202107131239.16DCdq6D058102@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.1 (DEB 209 2017-03-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Starlink] SatNetLab: A call to arms for the next global> Internet testbed X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:01:08 -0000 On Tue, 13 Jul 2021, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > It wasnt suggested "lowering the bit rate", it was suggested to make the > packets smaller, which actually does address the hidden transmitter problem > to some degree as it *would* reduce your air time occupancy, but the damn > wifi LL aggregation gets in your way cause it blows them back up. When I > am having to deal/use wifi in a hidden transmitter prone situation I always > crank down the Fragmentation Threshold setting from the default of 2346 bytes > to the often the minimum of 256 with good results. The problem is that with wifi at modern data rates, you have a header at a low data rate and then data at a much higher data rate (in extreme cases, a >50x difference), so the amount of data that you send has a pretty minor difference in the airtime used. So you really do want to send a large amount of data per transmission to minimize the overhead IT's not quite as bad if you have disabled 802.11b speeds on the entire network as that raises the header/housekeeping transmissions from 1Mb/s to 11Mb/s David Lang