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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> on behalf of Rich > Brown via Starlink <[email protected]> > Reply-To: Rich Brown <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 at 07:33 > To: David Fernández <[email protected]> > Cc: starlink <[email protected]>, bloat > <[email protected]> > 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 > <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVFWSyMp3xg&t=1098s Waves Podcast Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
