Hey mortenvp, ex-enterprise network admin's thoughts & questions:

- The 3 interfaces detail is a bit buried. For a second I thought you were somehow changing the adapter channel and association quickly enough on a single adapter.

- What approach are you taking to still present the client as a single IP source during the video call? (partly curiosity, largely curious how that interacts with using the network).

- Why are the comparisons to a single pinned AP only instead of normal roaming across them (preferably with KVR)? It makes me particularly suspicious of the results would be better, especially since pinning to AP B the entire time was already itself 0.17% off perfect.

- Do you have any comparisons with newer MLO setups to say "gives you x% of MLO without having to wait for infrastructure to catch up" or anything?

Yeah, good points.

On the three interfaces: others have pointed that out too, and we’ll try to make it clearer in the article. In this test the laptop had three Wi-Fi adapters, each pinned to a different AP. There’s nothing particularly special about three though - with two adapters connected to two different APs you should already be able to get a lot of the benefit.

On the IP side, the overlay works a bit like a VPN. Traffic is sent over all the available interfaces to software on the other side, which combines the paths and presents a normal IP stream towards the final destination. Encryption isn’t the primary purpose here - the main goal is making the connection more robust - although encryption can of course be added.

The pinned-AP comparison is a fair criticism. For this demo we deliberately kept each interface associated with one AP because we wanted to isolate the effect of using several paths at once, rather than also introducing the behaviour of the Wi-Fi roaming implementation into the test. Comparing against normal roaming, including 802.11k/v/r, is definitely something we want to test next.

We want to experiment with a small daemon that keeps the different Wi-Fi interfaces associated with different APs. If one drops out, it can reassociate that interface with another available AP, so in principle you can move through a much larger Wi-Fi deployment while still maintaining multiple active paths.

We haven’t done a proper comparison against Wi-Fi 7 MLO yet, but that would be a very interesting comparison. Conceptually there is definitely some overlap, although our approach sits above the individual Wi-Fi link and can also combine completely different networks.