Edge cases are king in networking, at least now that humans are so "connected".
Sometimes I'm playing a multiplayer online game and the connection lags for a second. My network then switches over, which takes up at least more "real time" than the actual lag (perhaps re-initialize sockets or arbitrary NAT operations or something).
Here I want it to opt for the 1 sec dropout, because it will only take a second, instead of often needing to reload client on a network switch. The router's logic is "not wrong" though.
Another problem is when 2 connections are close in signal strength. Ever other minute my network switches, coming across as pseudo-lag, because it's noticeable.
Many "modern" webapps are designed to compensate for this (also for general offline usage). A "modern" web app does not actually need persistent stable connection to function. It either caches or just needs initial data (variables) and does all the calculating logic client-side.
I like this, because it's more on similar grounds with how humans have/are working/communicating together in real life.
This has more to do with conceptual architecture, and not tech though. Many off these things can be configured right as it stands, but routers default setting is: "stupid". This offcourse has it's reasons.
Wifi also often gets confused if other wifi routers are nearby, or more relevant, if say 10 devices operate concurrently on the same local wifi. This is handicapped from the get go, because it has to filter the right packages out off the air. A wired connection is basically absolute about this. Like the article has stated, LTE seems more stable, because you have 100's off "routers" ur phone can choose from. Consumers don't want to buy 4 routers more for around the house to ensure optimal redundancy and stability.
Best would be to not even hook nodes directly to a main consumer router, but a switch. If ur main acces-point fails on a software level ( or hardware for that matter), everything down the hierarchy is irrelevant, even though ur "landline" is working just fine.
I also wish routers were less static from a consumers perspective. Ie. if i'm doing stuff on the net, I want my router to send me a msg saying, "hey for the past 20 minutes, you seem to have lag spikes, shall I switch to node x for you? prompt yes/no "
There's not much done to make routers user friendly (isp has it's own personal-gain-y reasons for this). These things should be more integrated to the user. Again there are good reasons like security to not have a hard bound to your "main machine", just saying that it irks me.
Sometimes I'm playing a multiplayer online game and the connection lags for a second. My network then switches over, which takes up at least more "real time" than the actual lag (perhaps re-initialize sockets or arbitrary NAT operations or something).
Here I want it to opt for the 1 sec dropout, because it will only take a second, instead of often needing to reload client on a network switch. The router's logic is "not wrong" though.
Another problem is when 2 connections are close in signal strength. Ever other minute my network switches, coming across as pseudo-lag, because it's noticeable.
Many "modern" webapps are designed to compensate for this (also for general offline usage). A "modern" web app does not actually need persistent stable connection to function. It either caches or just needs initial data (variables) and does all the calculating logic client-side.
I like this, because it's more on similar grounds with how humans have/are working/communicating together in real life.
This has more to do with conceptual architecture, and not tech though. Many off these things can be configured right as it stands, but routers default setting is: "stupid". This offcourse has it's reasons.
Wifi also often gets confused if other wifi routers are nearby, or more relevant, if say 10 devices operate concurrently on the same local wifi. This is handicapped from the get go, because it has to filter the right packages out off the air. A wired connection is basically absolute about this. Like the article has stated, LTE seems more stable, because you have 100's off "routers" ur phone can choose from. Consumers don't want to buy 4 routers more for around the house to ensure optimal redundancy and stability.
Best would be to not even hook nodes directly to a main consumer router, but a switch. If ur main acces-point fails on a software level ( or hardware for that matter), everything down the hierarchy is irrelevant, even though ur "landline" is working just fine.
I also wish routers were less static from a consumers perspective. Ie. if i'm doing stuff on the net, I want my router to send me a msg saying, "hey for the past 20 minutes, you seem to have lag spikes, shall I switch to node x for you? prompt yes/no "
There's not much done to make routers user friendly (isp has it's own personal-gain-y reasons for this). These things should be more integrated to the user. Again there are good reasons like security to not have a hard bound to your "main machine", just saying that it irks me.