Page 1 of 1

when new beta? When wireless QoS?

Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:16 am
by rpingar
it is long time since last beta5 when the new beta will be released?

Also I would like to hear some official word about wireless QoS from MT.

Regards
Rosario

Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:10 pm
by mrz
wireless QoS ?? I don't get it. You can do QoS on wireless interfaces even in 2.9.xx

Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:43 pm
by rpingar
802.11e or WMM is anough?

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:47 am
by janisk
patience please, patience

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:09 am
by rpingar
what means patence?

are you going to put it into 3.x?

something more detailed is welcome.

regards
ros

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:46 am
by janisk
some things where broken in Beta5

and QoS is already in RouterOS

patience is needed to wait for beta6

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:49 am
by rpingar
and QoS is already in RouterOS

May you explain little bit further this statement, in what way wmm or 802.11e is alredy implemented in routeros?

Thanks

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:53 am
by uldis
WMM is not implemented in the RouterOS yet.

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:58 am
by rpingar
are you planning to add it?

will it be in 3.0????

regards

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:08 am
by normis
please clarify the importance of WMM, have you done any tests that prove it to be necessary?

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:14 am
by uldis
are you planning to add it?

will it be in 3.0????

regards
Yes, we are planning to add it in the v3.0.

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:24 am
by rpingar
it seems to be very important for the following reason:
1. should be imporve teh latency of a wireless connection compared to non voip;
2. on the same wireless connection should give more priority to voip traffic compared to non voip;
3. great imporvment compared to csma/ca access

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:37 pm
by janisk
indeed these are the benefits

thumbs up, waiting for new feature to test :roll:

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:13 am
by phendry
At present we use traffic marking and queue trees to deliver reliable QoS however this does require knowing what throughput a wireless link is capable of or else queuing doesn't kick in in time. This has a couple of disadvantages in that you always have to assume the link is capable of slightly less than it really is and it never takes into account fade from poor weather. As WMM is more a feature of the Atheros chipset and therefore done at a lower level is it safe to assume that WMM Priority 6,7 will always get serviced first regardless of bandwidth available on the link?

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 9:29 am
by janisk
WMM is already implemented in RouterOS and is available in 3.0beta7

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 10:19 am
by NathanA
WMM is already implemented in RouterOS and is available in 3.0beta7
janisk, apparently you misunderstood phentry's question. He was not asking for WMM support; I'm sure he knows it is already implemented in 3.0beta7.

He was asking a specific question about WMM's benefits (especially vs. using queues to prioritize across a wireless link) and how it works. And, given what precious little I myself have managed to garner about WMM, his question seemed rather insightful and intelligently-phrased. I, too, would like to know the answer to this question.

-- Nathan

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 11:13 am
by sergejs
phendry,NathanA I'm not sure you have read this article, but probably it would help for WMM basics,
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/WMM

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 11:55 am
by phendry
phendry,NathanA I'm not sure you have read this article, but probably it would help for WMM basics,
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/WMM
I read that article a while back but it does not answer the question. Do you understand my question or should I rephrase? Interesting that Nathan understands what I'm questioning ;)

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:11 pm
by rpingar
I understand too.

Nstream and WMM are integrating?

Regrads
Ros

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:17 pm
by NathanA
I read that article a while back but it does not answer the question. Do you understand my question or should I rephrase?
Actually, to me from reading that article it does indeed sound like "the higher the priority number, the sooner it will be serviced" is a safe assumption to make.

It's also quite neat that the WMM priority can be influenced by the ToS/DS(CP) field in the IP header. Way cool.

-- Nathan

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:31 pm
by phendry
Actually, to me from reading that article it does indeed sound like "the higher the priority number, the sooner it will be serviced" is a safe assumption to make.
In my experience I've found it best not to assume. Although the last centence in the wiki page says "WMM traffic over wireless link will discriminate regular traffic in the air" it doesn't say if "all" priority 6,7 packets will be serviced and only when there are none will priority 4,5 be serviced.

If this is the way it works then it means we can get rid of queueing on the AP and just have queues at the CPE (for customers chosen bandwidth) and at the core (to implement contention).

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:28 pm
by sergejs
phendty,
WMM is the way to accomplish QoS over wirelesss, it does not improve throughput of links, it just treats different packets differently.
WMM provides matchers, that will be used only if other devices on the network could manage them properly.

Priority 6,7 will be proccessed firstly for outgoing packets, only if you will have WMM enabled link.

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 2:11 pm
by phendry
Priority 6,7 will be proccessed firstly for outgoing packets, only if you will have WMM enabled link.
Will WMM still work on an AP that has both WMM enabled and none WMM enabled clients? Obviously the none WMM clients won't get prioritised but will traffic to the WMM enabled clients still get prioritised?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 5:44 pm
by dbostrom
WMM is sort of pointless without any attack on the hidden node problem. Hopefully we'll soon see a partial (RTS, what 802.11 specifies, other than the sadly, universally unimplemented 802.11 PCF) solution pop up in an upcoming beta. Even if RTS/CTS is not a perfect solution, it's a big help...

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 10:02 pm
by uldis
"Better" access category for packet does not necessarily mean that it will be
sent over the air before all other packets with "worse" access category.
WMM works by executing DCF method for medium access with different settings for
each access category (EDCF), which basically means that "better" access
category has higher probability of getting access to medium - WMM enabled
station can be considered to be 4 stations, one per access category, and the
ones with "better" access category use settings that make them more likely to
get chance to transmit (by using shorter backoff timeouts) when all are
contending for medium. Details can be studied in 802.11e and WMM specification.

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 11:38 pm
by phendry
Uldis, do all clients on the AP need to support WMM for it to be active on the ap? Also, if WMM and Nstreme are being run on the same PTM are there any conflicts with both protocols trying to control the traffic or do they enhance each other?

Re:

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:02 am
by WirelessRudy
Uldis, do all clients on the AP need to support WMM for it to be active on the ap? Also, if WMM and Nstreme are being run on the same PTM are there any conflicts with both protocols trying to control the traffic or do they enhance each other?

As a reader with high interest in this treath I'm dissapointed that the thread 'bleeds' dead and some of the raised questions aren't answered yet.
Does this mean we readers have to start trying and test to find out ourselves?

Is the answer to your last question found or did you just forget about the issue... :?

Re: when new beta? When wireless QoS?

Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:51 pm
by phendry
Never received any response :(

Re: when new beta? When wireless QoS?

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:52 pm
by ghmorris
I would really like to see HCCA used. This would give us a big leg up on the competition, particularly if you have HCCA compatible APs and clients!!

Handling QoS at the Atheros level is going to be absolutely necessary if you want to do double or triple play networks. We have a fair bit of experience getting voice to run properly and WMM is another weapon to use in this fight, but the more advanced version would be even better.

George

Re: Re:

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:00 pm
by phendry
Uldis, do all clients on the AP need to support WMM for it to be active on the ap? Also, if WMM and Nstreme are being run on the same PTM are there any conflicts with both protocols trying to control the traffic or do they enhance each other?

As a reader with high interest in this treath I'm dissapointed that the thread 'bleeds' dead and some of the raised questions aren't answered yet.
Does this mean we readers have to start trying and test to find out ourselves?

Is the answer to your last question found or did you just forget about the issue... :?
Answers received http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... 737#p90737