Hi Rahul, Thanks very much for sharing the fragment forwarding implementation results.. The following drafts are implemented as per the link you provided: Fragment Forwarding drafts
1. Virtual reassembly buffers in 6LoWPAN <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly/> 2. LLN Minimal Fragment Forwarding <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment/> >From the results, I noticed an observation that send rate 80s, and 40s are doing better than the 160s send rate with 50s forwarding fragment spacing. Send rate Xs means sending fragmented packets at X sec interval - right? I thought, the performance would improve with higher X value, but that is not true - perhaps due to increased payload size. A graph or tabular result with same payload size with increased send interval rate might be useful to figure out the optimal pacing time for that payload - just a thought. In general, very interesting results! Also, it shows that by controlling the pacing of forwarding the fragments the performance can be improved to a great degree in a medium to small size mesh. ( in this example, 50 nodes). What happens when you increase the mesh size ( aka number of nodes)? Cheers, -Samita On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:17 AM Rahul Jadhav <rahul.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > <sending to 6lo, lwig WGs because both have relevant drafts> > > > > Hello All, > > > We tried experimenting with the virtual reassembly buffer and fragment > forwarding drafts. > > One fundamental characteristic that has major implications on fragment > forwarding performance is its behavior with realistic 802.15.4 RF > (especially when a train of fragments are simultaneously received and > transmitted). This is something which was not evaluated in any other > experiment. > > > > You ll find the details of the implementation, test setup details and > performance result here: > > https://github.com/nyrahul/ietf-data/blob/rst/6lo-fragfwd-perf-report.rst > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_nyrahul_ietf-2Ddata_blob_rst_6lo-2Dfragfwd-2Dperf-2Dreport.rst&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=pWMzx7FsqijEJPyfMBfn-HJss-wVVTf0K5y-cxCTXL8&m=PeFHI-ltr748QRhWwqigY8iNFPw9EcyFDwOeSrv6KQc&s=Rtytc7AFwMLDcwFQOSojZZZ3hiXl-j78GKTwYRi8Nw0&e=> > > > > Results are quite interesting: Simultaneous send/recv of fragments with > fragment forwarding has major implications on PDR/Latency. > > > > Feedback most welcome. > > > > Thanks, > > Rahul > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6...@ietf.org > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_6lo&d=DwICAg&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=pWMzx7FsqijEJPyfMBfn-HJss-wVVTf0K5y-cxCTXL8&m=PeFHI-ltr748QRhWwqigY8iNFPw9EcyFDwOeSrv6KQc&s=ebzWBVEJyovVUcFHM2mByigGnDBv0aoTSm21fmwa5vU&e= >
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list Lwip@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
