On Jan 14, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Razvan Musaloiu-E. wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Miklos Maroti wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Razvan Musaloiu-E. <[email protected] >> > wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Miklos Maroti wrote: >>> >>>> Channel 11 is not too bad either, no? Miklos >>> >>> Zigbee channel 11 is overlapping with the WiFi channel 1. That is >>> no true >>> for Zigbee channel 26. As you can see from figure 4 from the paper >>> the >>> lossrate of the 4 Zigbee channel overlapping a WiFi channel will >>> have losses >>> if the WiFi traffic is increased. As figure 1 indicate, Zigbee >>> channel 24 is >>> the last one overlapping with the WiFi channel 11. So both 25 and >>> 26 should >>> be the best one, with 26 being the farthest away. >> >> Well, maybe the RF230 has some problems with channel 26, so channel >> 25 >> could be much better. Anyways, if there are observable real world >> problems with channel 26 on the IRIS then no academic reasoning is >> going to change that!! > > I agree. But I want to be able to replicate these problems with > channel > 26 on our side. > >> We need to have a default where the mote is >> working at its peek. If people want interoperability, they are fine >> to >> experiment with other channels. >> >> So my question, can someone run real application experiments on >> channel 11, 25, and 26? Loss rate would be interesting to know. (I >> have no motes) > > It will take some time but we'll run some tests and measure the loss > rate > on Zigbee channel 11 with heavy WiFi traffic on WiFi channel 1 and the > loss rate on channels 25 and 26 with heavy WiFi traffic on WiFi > channel > 11. :-)
Take a look at HyungJune's paper in IPSN 2007. WiFi corrupts 15.4 packets. We could switch to 25 as the default if there's a problem with IRIS. But 11 is taking a step backward. Phil _______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list [email protected] https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
