Hi, Sorry, maybe I did not craft the subject correctly. I am receiving the daily digest of the list, not individual messages.
I have seen before that the L2 engineers (Wi-Fi, DVB...) and the Internet engineers (L3) are trying to solve the same issue (QoS, congestion control) without being aware of what each other are doing and not even getting coordinated. I am afraid that nowadays we have even the application layer engineers doing their own stuff (DASH, CDNs...). Some time ago, I worked in a project about cross-layer optimization techniques for SATCOM systems, where one of the issues was to try to optimize transport layer performance with L2 info. I was just a mere observer of what academy people in the consortium where proposing. That was quite long ago: https://artes.esa.int/projects/ipfriendly-crosslayer-optimization-adaptive-satellite-systems Today I came across this: https://www.elektormagazine.com/news/white-paper-why-wi-fi-6-goes-hand-in-hand-with-cellular-to-enable-the-hyper-connected-enterprise-future "the performance uplift of Wi-Fi 6 over Wi-Fi 5 is substantial and more than sufficient to support innovative use cases such as automated guided vehicles, industrial robots and many other applications." This sound like Wi-Fi 6 will support low latency and will have a good QoS support. Maybe... Regards, David 2022-12-21 8:54 GMT+01:00, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > See [SM] below. > > On 21 December 2022 08:37:27 CET, "David Fernández via Starlink" > <[email protected]> wrote: >>What about this? >>https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-wmm-programs >> >>Isn't this Wi-Fi MM (Multimedia) supposed to solve Wi-Fi QoS issues? > > [SM] In home network reality it failed to do so. I would guess > partly because the admission control component is optional and as far as I > can tell not available in the usual WiFi routers and APs. A free for all > priority system that in addition diminishes the total achievable throughput > when the higher priority tiers are used introduces at least as much QoS > issues a it solves IMHO. This might be different for 'enterprise WiFi gear' > but I have no experience with that... > > Regard > Sebastian > > P.S.: This feels like you might responded to a different thread than the > iperf2 one we are in right now? > > > >> >>> Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2022 11:04:13 -0800 >>> From: rjmcmahon <[email protected]> >>> To: Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> >>> Cc: rjmcmahon via Make-wifi-fast >>> <[email protected]>, Dave Täht >>> <[email protected]>, Rpm <[email protected]>, libreqos >>> <[email protected]>, Dave Taht via Starlink >>> <[email protected]>, bloat <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] Fwd: [Make-wifi-fast] make-wifi-fast >>> 2016 & crusader >>> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed >>> >>> Thanks for the well-written response Sebastian. I need to think more >>> about the load vs no load OWD differentials and maybe offer that as an >>> integrated test. Thanks for bringing it up (again.) I do think a >>> low-duty cycle bounceback test to the AP could be interesting too. >>> >>> I don't know of any projects working on iperf 2 & containers but it has >>> been suggested as useful. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>Starlink mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > _______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
