Re: [Babel-users] [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

>> What problem are you trying to solve? > Less useless overhead on slow-speed networks (think VHF/UHF radio). > DAD works by pretending that the colliding address should be in > communication range, which is not true for mesh networks. I understand that DAD is pretty useless in sparse mesh

Re: [Babel-users] [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> I must admit I have been thinking about switching off Duplicate >> Address Detection for mesh interfaces automatically... > > What problem are you trying to solve? Less useless overhead on slow-speed

Re: [Babel-users] [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

> I must admit I have been thinking about switching off Duplicate > Address Detection for mesh interfaces automatically... What problem are you trying to solve? -- Juliusz ___ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org

Re: [Babel-users] [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

I must admit I have been thinking about switching off Duplicate Address Detection for mesh interfaces automatically... it makes not much sense on non-transitive interfaces anyways. Henning On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> I believe

Re: [Babel-users] [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

> I believe the openwrt developers are thinking a long similar lines, see e.g. > https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-June/033398.html If I read this message right, what Luessing is doing are some special-case hacks to reduce the number of ND multicasts. He's not attempting a

Re: [Babel-users] Multicast IHUs

>> No need to duck, Dave, it's very similar to what was done with UDP-Lite, > Hmm.. In babel's case, switching it to udp-lite would be like 1 line > of code. I'm not suggesting that Babel should use UDP-Lite, it would be a silly idea. I'm just saying that your « don't buffer this » DSCP

Re: [Babel-users] Multicast IHUs [was: perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> 4) And ya know - it might merely be a (sadly common) bug. Everybody's >> supposed to wake up for the multicast beacons and get a notification >> there's more data to come. > > Yes, it's obviously a

Re: [Babel-users] Multicast IHUs [was: perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> 1) Well, I have suggested that IHU messages actually be unicast rather >> than bundled with the hello. > > Yes, you have suggested that before. I answered I would implement that if > somebody

[Babel-users] Multicast IHUs [was: perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode]

> 1) Well, I have suggested that IHU messages actually be unicast rather > than bundled with the hello. Yes, you have suggested that before. I answered I would implement that if somebody volunteered to do an experimental evaluation. Nobody volunteered. > That would help somewhat in this case.

Re: [Babel-users] [Make-wifi-fast] [Cerowrt-devel] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> Why not just sending IP multicast (not 802.11 management frames) with >> a higher rate (lowest best linkspeed to all known neighbors)? > > )I've always liked this idea as an enhancement to the existing 802.11 > spec. It is

Re: [Babel-users] [Make-wifi-fast] [Cerowrt-devel] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Henning Rogge wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:04 PM, moeller0 wrote: >> >>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 15:43 , Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >>> Presumably the access point could transparently turn IP-level multicast

Re: [Babel-users] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek > wrote: >>> Discovery is a special case, that is not quite multicast. [...] So you >>> don't need any facility to "reach all" in one

Re: [Babel-users] [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:04 PM, moeller0 wrote: > >> On Apr 28, 2016, at 15:43 , Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> Presumably the access point could transparently turn IP-level multicast >> into a unicast frame to each associated station? Not sure how that would >>

Re: [Babel-users] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> Discovery is a special case, that is not quite multicast. [...] So you >> don't need any facility to "reach all" in one message. > > Are we speaking of the IP Internet, or of some other network? Heh.

Re: [Babel-users] [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

> On Apr 28, 2016, at 15:43 , Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > Juliusz Chroboczek writes: > >> For discovery, multicast is unavoidable -- there's simply no way you're >> going to send a unicast to a node that you haven't discovered yet. > >

Re: [Babel-users] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

> Discovery is a special case, that is not quite multicast. [...] So you > don't need any facility to "reach all" in one message. Are we speaking of the IP Internet, or of some other network? A number of fundamental Internet protocols, such as ARP and ND, use multicast for discovery (I see

Re: [Babel-users] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

Discovery is a special case, that is not quite multicast. Discovery is "noticing". A node wishing to be discovered must be noticed by one (or maybe more) already existent stations in a group (groups are noticed by any member being noticed by a member of another group). So you don't need any

Re: [Babel-users] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

Juliusz Chroboczek writes: > For discovery, multicast is unavoidable -- there's simply no way you're > going to send a unicast to a node that you haven't discovered yet. Presumably the access point could transparently turn IP-level multicast into a unicast frame

Re: [Babel-users] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

> Multicast is seductive to designers who ignore the realities of > propagation and channel coding issues, because they think it works one > way, but the reality is quite different. Hold on. Mulsticast is used for two distinct purposes: for broadcast-style applications (streaming), and for

Re: [Babel-users] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

> Has anyone modeled what the multicast to multiple-unicast efficiency > threshold is? An interesting experiment to perform, without doubt. (Experiment would be more interesting than modelling.) -- Juliusz ___ Babel-users mailing list

Re: [Babel-users] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

Interesting stuff. A deeper problem with WiFi-type protocols is that the very idea of "multicast" on the PHY level (air interface) is flawed, based on a model of propagation that assumes that every station can be easily addressed simultaneously, at the same bitrate, etc. Multicast is seductive

Re: [Babel-users] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

Has anyone modeled what the multicast to multiple-unicast efficiency threshold is? The point where you go from it being more efficient to send multicast traffic to individual STAs instead of sending a monstrous (in time) multicast-rate packet? 2, 5, 10 STAs? The per-STA-queue work should make

Re: [Babel-users] [Make-wifi-fast] perverse powersave bug with sta/ap mode

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Aaron Wood wrote: Has anyone modeled what the multicast to multiple-unicast efficiency threshold is? The point where you go from it being more efficient to send multicast traffic to individual STAs instead of sending a monstrous (in time) multicast-rate packet? is the