I have been busy with other matters and unable to keep up on this thread. I just wanted to say that I'm with dlang here... aggregated and asymmetric transmits in wifi, cell, and cable, are here to stay. Deal with it.
I would certainly have preferred a wifi world that instead of all stations and APs highly contending for bursty access to a single 320mhz channel, we had 160 dedicated, low latency, 5mhz channels, but that is not what the IEEE has handed us. On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:58 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Joe Touch wrote: > >> On 10/9/2015 7:14 PM, David Lang wrote: >>> >>> The problem with proposals like that is just like RFC3449 says, the >>> source can't know what the network looks like to decide if there is a >>> benefit to reducing ACKs. >> >> >> To understand your position, is your conclusion that if it benefits a >> single place in the network, then that's enough of a view to know that >> it's safe and beneficial throughout the network? > > > No. > > But when something shows clear beneifts when deployed, clear problems need > to be identified to counter those benefits, or alturnative methods of > solveing the problem need to be shown. > > I didn't know about it initially (I was working from experience and logic), > RFC3449 has explored many of the problems that cause and result from fewer > than 1 ACK per 2 data packets, including worrying about the timing of the > ACK packets. > > As much as you seem to want to make this discussion about cable modems and > highly assymetric links, this discussiona ctually started from the position > of packets in a particular flow being sent in bursts due to non-endpoint > related reasons. It started with AQM queues, but radio networks (Wifi and > Cell) have similar behavior (packets queue until a transmit window is > available, tehn a bunch are sent at once) > > Cable modems were introduced to the discussion to counter the thought that > sending fewer ACKs would destroy the Intenet. > > RFC3449 doesn't completely address the current situation, but it provides a > very good place to start, and it seems to me that the solitions it explores > to address the conerns that it (and you) raise are actually being addressed > pretty completely. There are still some areas to talk about (ECN interaction > for example) and we wshould be talking about those issues rather than > arguing that the proposal violates holy writ. > > you want a network where packets are just forwarded with no modification and > no delays. Unfortunantly such a network does not match the real world any > longer (and it only approximated the real world in the first place) Shared > media networks have existed since the earliest networking days. What is > changing is theratio between the data speed when transmittingand the time > available to transmit. Given the same number of stations in an area, I'll > bet that old thinnet ethernet at 10Mb/s spent a significantly higher > percentage of the time transmitting data than current Gb/s and immediate > future 10Gb/s wireless networks. Just like wired network speeds are climbing > with the MTU staying the ame, wireless network data rates are climbing but > the time available for a given station is remaining the same (or shrinking), > so the number of packets that get delayed until the next transmit slot are > only going to keep climbing, no matter what anyone wants. > > The asymmetrical nature of the networks is just addng insult to injury, not > the cause of the issues. > > Wireless networks are gaining the ability to transmit to multiple stations > at once. But the nature of usage patterns and the physical geometry of the > wired vs mobile ends of the link make the reality that only the wired end > can effectively make use of this capability. this makes the availble > downstream bandwidth on a network fabric grow much faster than the available > upstream bandwidth. To some extent this will put less stress on the upstream > side of the wired network it's attached to, but it will mean that the demand > for mobile station transmit slots is only going to multiply. Just reducing > the number of timeslots the base station uses isn't the answer because that > will add latency to all the data downloads. > > IIRC, I saw a story today where one of the contenders for 5G cell networks > is already at a ratio of 24:1 or worse. > > David Lang > > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm -- Dave Täht Do you want faster, better, wifi? https://www.patreon.com/dtaht _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
