TCP behavior across WiFi pointers ?

Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de> Wed, 08 November 2017 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE539128CD5 for <tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 09:42:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 b3fvdZRKJkEl for <tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 09:42:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E40F1294A1 for <tsv-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 09:42:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:77]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9200A58C4B9 for <tsv-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:42:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 7697DB0D0FF; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:42:47 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 18:42:47 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>
To: tsv-area@ietf.org
Subject: TCP behavior across WiFi pointers ?
Message-ID: <20171108174247.GM19390@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-area/MlnpNqEKXZUaB2QWWUkC9CZyc0A>
X-BeenThere: tsv-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Transport and Services Area Mailing List <tsv-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-area>, <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-area>, <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 17:42:54 -0000

Any pointers to work analyzing the differences in behavior when TCP is run
across WiFi as opposed to wired ? Especially with WiFi in the home ?

I am primarily thinking that there could be a higher demand for
TCP (end-to-end) retransmissions when using WiFi because the L2/WiFi
local retransmissions are insufficient. And if so, what the characteristics
of those end-to-end retransmissions is (would assume they would be larger
than N msec, where N is whatever the L2/wifi protection window is, which
unfortunately i don't know).

Asking because we've got the poor "must-sit-in-back-of-the-bus" traffic
called IP multicast that is not protected by L2/wifi retransmissions at
all and now we're wondering if carrying it over TCP as a workaround
could help, and therefore trying to educate myself on specific known
issue left when running traffic over TCP over WiFi.

If any other TSV or other WG mailing list might be a better place to
ask. pls. let me know.

Thank!
    Toerless