Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1555732
| From | Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast |
| Date | 2017-01-10 18:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sY8pc-4aE-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <sXPFT-SY-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <sXPPz-W8-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <sXW4F-509-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sY2jL-he-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sY8fw-47w-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 2017-01-10 18:17, Dave Taht wrote: > In the case of wifi I have 3 issues with this line of thought. > > multicast in wifi has generally supposed to be unreliable. This makes > it reliable. reliability comes at a cost - > > multicast is typically set at a fixed low rate today. unicast is > retried at different rates until it succeeds - for every station > listening. If one station is already at the lowest rate, the total > cost of the transmit increases, rather than decreases. > > unicast gets block acks until it succeeds. Again, more delay. > > I think there is something like 31 soft-retries in the ath9k driver.... If I remember correctly, hardware retries are counted here as well. > what happens to diffserv markings here? for unicast CS1 goes into the > BE queue, CS6, the VO queue. Do we go from one flat queue for all of > multicast to punching it through one of the hardware queues based on > the diffserv mark now with this patch? > > I would like it if there was a way to preserve the unreliability > (which multiple mesh protocols depend on), send stuff with QoSNoack, > etc - or dynamically choose (based on the rates of the stations) > between conventional multicast and unicast. > > Or - better, IMHO, keep sending multicast as is but pick the best of > the rates available to all the listening stations for it. The advantage of the multicast-to-unicast conversion goes beyond simply selecting a better rate - aggregation matters a lot as well, and that is simply incompatible with normal multicast. Some multicast streams use lots of small-ish packets, the airtime impact of those is vastly reduced, even if the transmission has to be duplicated for a few stations. - Felix
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2017-01-06 14:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name> - 2017-01-06 15:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2017-01-06 15:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name> - 2017-01-06 15:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast "M. Braun" <michael-dev@fami-braun.de> - 2017-01-07 11:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue> - 2017-01-07 16:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2017-01-09 09:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast "M. Braun" <michael-dev@fami-braun.de> - 2017-01-09 13:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2017-01-09 13:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast michael-dev <michael-dev@fami-braun.de> - 2017-01-09 16:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2017-01-09 16:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue> - 2017-01-09 22:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> - 2017-01-09 22:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue> - 2017-01-10 05:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2017-01-10 12:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 18:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name> - 2017-01-10 18:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 19:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name> - 2017-01-10 22:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name> - 2017-01-11 12:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name> - 2017-01-11 13:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue> - 2017-01-07 16:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2017-01-09 09:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue> - 2017-01-09 13:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2017-01-09 13:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue> - 2017-01-10 00:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2017-01-11 10:20 +0100
csiph-web