Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression
David Lang <david@lang.hm> Sun, 11 October 2015 04:02 UTC
Return-Path: <david@lang.hm>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465641ACE46 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id np1YkMh35ah3 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (mail.lang.hm [64.81.33.126]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5DD71ACE44 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id t9B42uIG001211; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:02:56 -0700
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:02:56 -0700
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm
To: Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net>
In-Reply-To: <56199F4A.5050105@superduper.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510102055340.1856@nftneq.ynat.uz>
References: <5618005A.8070303@isi.edu> <70335.1444421059@lawyers.icir.org> <D23D8CA5.54DF5%g.white@cablelabs.com> <56183B49.4000506@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510091511540.3717@nftneq.ynat.uz> <56183E93.1010308@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510091528320.3717@nftneq.ynat.uz> <5618420E.9040609@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510091628010.3717@nftneq.ynat.uz> <5618554F.3080103@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510091716100.3717@nftneq.ynat.uz> <56185E44.9050702@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510091910170.3717@nftneq.ynat.uz> <561891C3.90004@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510092134190.15683@nftneq.ynat.uz> <CAA93jw64aE+to_=Q0suMBLuPDaZV+wU9mD4RWO55=NdD0jk_fw@mail.gmail.com> <ABCBBA02-5AB4-4B27-9AE2-6C1E93E8BEA0@gmail.com> <56199F4A.5050105@superduper.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/HCl4WHlSH5WE5zu5AOuVcIHB5jg>
Cc: aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 04:02:59 -0000
full duplex RF communication is HARD, and completely incompatible with existing stuff. Full duplex also doesn't really help when the problem is more than two stations communicating. And with the mu-mimo mode of operation where the AP is transmitting to multiple receivers at once, 'full duplex' between all the stations is orders of magnatude harder. The biggest problem with the latest standards is that the per transmit overhead is not shrinking at all. Even as the data bitrates skyrocket, the management bitrates, quiet time requirements, etc remain static. There would actually be far more benefits from scrapping these timings and re-setting them to match current high-speed capabilities than in going to full-duplex with the current timings in place. Unfortuantly, unless the new systems are on a newly opened frequency band, legacy requirements (existing networks continuing to operate, not just legacy equipment talking to new networks) make this hard. The fact that Wifi networks are not on a dedicated, regulated band and are instead in the 'free for all' bands means that it's not even possible to outlaw old stuff to make room for new stuff. David Lang On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, Simon Barber wrote: > The next generation of WiFi is likely to include full duplex - it's about the > only physical layer thing left! > > Simon > > On 10/10/2015 4:12 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote: >>> On 11 Oct, 2015, at 02:06, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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.
- [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Greg White
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram (Wolfram)
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Bless, Roland (TM)
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Clark Gaylord
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Steve Bauer
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Francini, Andrea (Andrea)
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Richard Scheffenegger
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Greg White
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Bless, Roland (TM)
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Collier-Brown
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Jonathan Morton
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Richard Scheffenegger
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Jonathan Morton
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Jonathan Morton
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Greg White
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Christian Huitema
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Rick Jones
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Christian Huitema
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Collier-Brown
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Simon Barber
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Greg White
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression Simon Barber
- Re: [aqm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Dave Taht
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Jonathan Morton
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Jonathan Morton
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Simon Barber
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Jonathan Morton
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Greg White
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang
- Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression David Lang