On Sun, 11 Oct 2015, Jonathan Morton wrote:
On 11 Oct, 2015, at 02:06, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Dual radios would be a useful compromise - one 20-40 MHz channel to the AP,
one from it. Stations would still need to negotiate for the channel in the
uplink direction, but the AP would be able to transmit on the downlink more
freely.
That helps less than you would think because there isn't just one AP in the
area. There are multiple APs around on the same channel. Even in the best
managed and coordinated wifi networks there are only so many channels and you
_are_ going to end up re-using a channel in such a way that stations are going
to hear more than one AP.
I run the wireless network for the Scale conference in Los Angeles, and I do a
really good job with it (It's not just me bragging, see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXvGbEYeWp0&t=4795 for a segment from the Linux
Action Show from this years conference where they outright rant about how good
things were compared to other places they've been). But even with RF sanity
being my primary focus, and using 5GHz equipment, there is still going to be
overlapping coverage. And on 2.4GHz, especially outside a carefully engineered
environment, it's horrific.
The focus of thte IEEE and engineers on per-station speed in an isolated
evironment is pushing things in the wrong direction. With 802.11ac (and cell
LTE networks) we are gaining the ability for the fixed stations to transmit to
more than one mobile station at the same time on a single channel, but that only
adds to the bandwidth distortion and means that there will be even more acks
being generated in response to a single AP txop.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
