[tsvwg] Re: WGLC for A NQB PHB for Differentiated Services (draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb) to end 27th May 2024.

["Livingood, Jason" <[e-mail]>]

On 5/21/24, 02:30, "Sebastian Moeller" wrote:

> [SM] Respectfully, how did you assess the potential harm done by using AC_VI to other traffic (e.g. other APs/SSIDs sharing the same channel)? If you relied on traffic shaping ingress NQB traffic at the CMTS/CPE level how did you assert that the NQB traffic did not exceed its acceptable share of the (variable) capacity/airtime of the WiFi link?

Comcast operates one of the world's largest Wi-Fi networks and we have extensive Wi-Fi labs and field testing programs. Separate from our low latency program, we have for some time tested the effects of user-directed per-device and app-based per-flow WMM priority. We certainly do focus on adjacent AP, as this is especially critical in the many multi-dwelling units (apartment buildings and the like) in which we operate. We have not observed any performance problems in such testing. 

In addition, many commercially available consumer routers and AP systems already offer similar prioritization for many years and I have not heard complaints in the marketplace about this (e.g., 'my neighbor is using a gaming AP and now my WiFi network doesn't work').  

JL